People needing rescue and found negligent need to pay up or lose driver license, possibly other licenses.
More than 1 million has been spent on rescues in the last decade with only $25,000 recouped.
Needless to say, the situation has gotten out of control and costly.;)

Sure, some of the 911 calls are needless. And there are a lot of unprepared hikers out there. But doing something like this is only going to discourage people from calling for help, even if they really need it.

There has to be a better way.

jrwiesz

12-31-2008, 04:04

There has to be a better way.

Leave them out there, survival of the fittest.

All S&R that is "requested" should have a minimum service charge, nation wide.
Require community service time if they are unable to pay.
Jail them if they don't pay, charge them for jail time also.
Funny how persons jailed for failure to pay child support, suddenly find the monies to pay that arrearage.

warraghiyagey

12-31-2008, 04:41

If you need to be rescued in NH just tell them your trail name is Woodsy.:)

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 04:48

Leave them out there, survival of the fittest.

All S&R that is "requested" should have a minimum service charge, nation wide.
Require community service time if they are unable to pay.
Jail them if they don't pay, charge them for jail time also.
Funny how persons jailed for failure to pay child support, suddenly find the monies to pay that arrearage.

pfffft:rolleyes: Some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Pokey2006

12-31-2008, 04:50

I don't disagree when it comes to truly bogus calls. Calling 911 and saying I'm lost and launching a massive search. But who decides what's bogus and what's legitimate? Where do you draw the line?

My concern is the effect it would have in cases where help is legitimately needed. I'd hate to have someone hesitate to call for help when it's needed just because they're worried about the tougher new laws.

And if you think ALL calls should come with a charge, well, that's like saying people should be charged for calling the fire department when their house is on fire. People do dumb things to set their own houses on fire all the time, most are cases of real negligence and stupidity, and you don't see them being charged for the fire department's services.

Feral Bill

12-31-2008, 04:59

Has anyone out there never done anything stupid that could have resulted in a rescue?

jrwiesz

12-31-2008, 05:07

And if you think ALL calls should come with a charge, well, that's like saying people should be charged for calling the fire department when their house is on fire.

I was talking about S&R calls.

Citizens that own "real property" in a municipality pay, through assessed property taxes, a fee for such services [fire, police, etc.], should the need arise. If, I never need these services, I am still required to pay for the likelyhood that I may need them.

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 05:11

I was talking about S&R calls.

Citizens that own "real property" in a municipality pay, through assessed property taxes, a fee for such services [fire, police, etc.], should the need arise. If, I never need these services, I am still required to pay for the likelyhood that I may need them.

That sounds like the residents of New Hampshire. They pay taxes for a service they may never need. If they don't like it, they're free to leave.

Pokey2006

12-31-2008, 05:39

I was talking about S&R calls.

Citizens that own "real property" in a municipality pay, through assessed property taxes, a fee for such services [fire, police, etc.], should the need arise. If, I never need these services, I am still required to pay for the likelyhood that I may need them.

Then maybe the solution is to charge a "hiker tax." Actually, someone on WB has mentioned that before, I guess some places out west do it? I just don't think this "let's get tough" attitude is the right way to approach the issue.

And I don't see how S&R calls are all that different from calling your local police and fire departments for help. Granted, funded in different ways, but still the same basic thing. When someone needs help, they need help. They shouldn't have to worry about how they're going to pay for it.

celt

12-31-2008, 06:36

Sure, some of the 911 calls are needless. And there are a lot of unprepared hikers out there. But doing something like this is only going to discourage people from calling for help, even if they really need it.

There has to be a better way.

I think the average person who tends to get in over their heads won't even know the laws have been beefed up.

I hope those who are more informed about rules and regs will take a closer look at their skills before they go out if they don't want to risk a costly rescue.

jrwiesz

12-31-2008, 06:46

Then maybe the solution is to charge a "hiker tax." Actually, someone on WB has mentioned that before, I guess some places out west do it? I just don't think this "let's get tough" attitude is the right way to approach the issue.

No, if one pays income tax, funds are allocated out of the federal budget for upkeep of our public lands. So, if I choose to enjoy our public places, I already have paid a "hiker tax", so to speak. That's not to say I don't/won't pay "backcounty" fees where required.

I'm not really saying, "let's get tough". I'm saying, "if you do the crime, pay the dime". We need to get away from the "entitlement" mindset in our society. The, "I got my hoverround, and didn't have to pay a dime", mindset. Somebody had to pay for that hoverround; the taxpayer, with Medicare/Medicaid funds, somebody paid, as they don't give them away for free.
If you were to go to your favorite ski hill, there is a disclaimer on the lift ticket, "skiing is a dangerous sport"..."not responsible for your injuries from your ineptitude". If you were to fall and break your leg, you would have to pay for the ambulance ride and medical bills. Same goes for ineptitude on public areas. You do something stupid, you cannot "expect" society to pay for your blunder. Choices equal consequences. Choose bad, pay up.

And I don't see how S&R calls are all that different from calling your local police and fire departments for help. Granted, funded in different ways, but still the same basic thing. When someone needs help, they need help. They shouldn't have to worry about how they're going to pay for it.

If they want help bad enough, they'll pay for it. Maybe, if this were tried for a while, one might see wiser choices, less "help me I made a stupid choice"..."bail me out, out of the kindness of our nations/states/counties already limited resources".

Rights equal responsibilities.

mudhead

12-31-2008, 07:36

That sounds like the residents of New Hampshire. They pay taxes for a service they may never need. If they don't like it, they're free to leave.

Ah, but they really want to build a fence.

It needs to be socially unacceptable to go out at 230PM, then punch 911 because it gets dark.

woodsy

12-31-2008, 09:21

Its about money sure but lets not forget the human element.

The $1 million does not include close to 20,000 hours of volunteer work by 13 affiliated search and rescue teams in the state, who work with the department through the New Hampshire Outdoor Council
These selfless volunteers are giving their time and all hours of the day and night and taking risks because of sometimes incompetent adventurers seekers.
I would have to believe that these people are getting pretty put out by some of the calls they are sent out on too... getting out of a warm bed in the middle of the night to go look for someone(s) who is in the mountains with little to no gear except a cell phone.

Lone Wolf

12-31-2008, 09:27

I would have to believe that these people are getting pretty put out by some of the calls they are sent out on too... getting out of a warm bed in the middle of the night to go look for someone(s) who is in the mountains with little to no gear except a cell phone.

they shouldn't be in the volunteer business then

yaduck9

12-31-2008, 09:28

Then maybe the solution is to charge a "hiker tax." Actually, someone on WB has mentioned that before, I guess some places out west do it? I just don't think this "let's get tough" attitude is the right way to approach the issue.

And I don't see how S&R calls are all that different from calling your local police and fire departments for help. Granted, funded in different ways, but still the same basic thing. When someone needs help, they need help. They shouldn't have to worry about how they're going to pay for it.

A couple of years ago the forest service put out self service kiosks at the more popuar trail heads. You would put your 5 dollars in and you would get a one time pass that you would put on your dash. a ranger would come by and ticket anyone who did not have the permit on the dash.

They are now gone. Don't know the whole story. Usually stayed away from the more popular trail heads and avoided the crowds.

Two Speed

12-31-2008, 09:29

True, but there are folks that really shouldn't be in the hiker business, either.

yaduck9

12-31-2008, 09:35

I don't disagree when it comes to truly bogus calls. Calling 911 and saying I'm lost and launching a massive search. But who decides what's bogus and what's legitimate? Where do you draw the line?

My concern is the effect it would have in cases where help is legitimately needed. I'd hate to have someone hesitate to call for help when it's needed just because they're worried about the tougher new laws.

And if you think ALL calls should come with a charge, well, that's like saying people should be charged for calling the fire department when their house is on fire. People do dumb things to set their own houses on fire all the time, most are cases of real negligence and stupidity, and you don't see them being charged for the fire department's services.

It would be interesting to determine if most rescues are for out of towners or tourists. Folks who are not fully aware of what they are getting into. Just wondering because those folks bring money into the local economy and a solution could be created based on that. just my 2 pennies.:-?

woodsy

12-31-2008, 09:39

they shouldn't be in the volunteer business then
Those that volunteer in the White Mountains area are probably starting to feel that way too.!:D

superman

12-31-2008, 10:02

This issue was hotly debated before making these changes. The problem is that people have come to mistake carrying a cell phone for being prepared. Some folks have raised stupid to an art form. Yes, it is a matter of cost. The number of easily prevented rescues has increased while the cost of each rescue has increased. Something had to be done...NH was forced into this action. I'd like to see a lot more public awareness go with this change. I'd like people to know in advance that “stupid” will cost them. This change does not impact at all on prepared "**** happens" rescues.

Tin Man

12-31-2008, 11:06

I would be interested in the accounting. It costs money NOT to go on calls too. And if they didn't have calls, they would just have more time to do drills, which cost money. The real cost is the delta between the cost to have the service available and the incremental cost to go search. Just saying not all quoted costs are the real costs.

chomp

12-31-2008, 12:04

Due to the nature of the WMNF in NH, it really would not be possible to enforce a tax every time you hike. States out west that have a hiking "tax" don't even do this.

One idea that was tossed around by some states was "hiker insurance", which would be something like $5 / year. However, its was generally considered that this would be a bad decision since people would be much more likely to call 911 if they felt like they had purchased "insurance".

With the new NH law, people will be much less likely to call 911, even if they need help. And that's a good thing. NH is trying to encourage people to be both more prepared and more self reliant. Many people that call for help are in situations that they can get out of without assistance.

Hopefully with this new law, people will only call 911 when they are in a truly life-threatening situation. Having to spend an unplanned night sleeping outside is NOT an emergency. Its inconvenient and uncomfortable.

Jack Tarlin

12-31-2008, 12:08

As a resident of New Hampshire, I think this new rule is great.

In life, actions have consequences, and one pays for mistakes, especially stupid ones.

This should include stupid mistakes and decisions made while hiking.

Sly

12-31-2008, 12:32

I think some people here haven't read the article.

CONCORD – The state Fish and Game Department has a new and simpler way to go after the intoxicated and unprepared who venture into the woods and require costly rescues. And the penalties will be more severe than just fines.

Under changes in state law enacted this year, it will soon begin telling some of them they risk losing their driver's licenses for failing to pay for rescues.
Do something stupid and need a rescue and you're going to get fined. Don't pay and you're going to lose your license. What's so unreasonable about that?

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 12:54

I think some people here haven't read the article.

Do something stupid and need a rescue and you're going to get fined. Don't pay and you're going to lose your license. What's so unreasonable about that?

It would make more sense if everyone got charged no matter how sober or "prepared" they might be:rolleyes:

What a load of pretentious crap... Like it makes a difference if the person sober or not. If you look at the figures they give, most instances aren't due to being intoxicated or unprepared(by their definition). It's the "responsible" ones that are costing the most.

Sly

12-31-2008, 12:57

It would make more sense if everyone got charged no matter how sober or "prepared" they might be:rolleyes:

What a load of pretentious crap... Like it makes a difference if the person sober or not. If you look at the figures they give, most instances aren't due to being intoxicated or unprepared(by their definition). It's the "responsible" ones that are costing the most.

I saw you on another thread defending drunks. I suppose it's OK to drive drunk too?

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 12:58

I saw you on another thread defending drunks. I suppose it's OK to drive drunk too?

I defended adults enjoying adult beverages and I supplied a legal alternative for drinkers who are going to the PA ruck. How in the hell did you make that leap? Are you drunk?

Lone Wolf

12-31-2008, 12:59

what if the st. bernard with the brandy got to the rescuee before the rescuers? he should get a pass on being drunk

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 13:01

what if the st. bernard with the brandy got to the rescuee before the rescuers? he should get a pass on being drunk

They'll probably due away with the brandy and just have the dog give them an invoice.

Sly

12-31-2008, 13:02

I defended adults enjoying adult beverages and I supplied a legal alternative for drinkers who are going to the PA ruck. How in the hell did you make that leap? Are you drunk?

It's all good... Someone's has to stand up for the drinkers... I'm am however, doing my best to hold back... you know how I get..

It was easy.

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 13:04

It was easy.

For you to get confused? When did I ever support drinkers doing something illegal? Is it standard practice on WB for mods to make an ass out of themselves now?

Just so we're clear- No, it's not ok to drive drunk. Ever. Someone could get killed or injured.

rickb

12-31-2008, 13:23

Why should a person who doesn't assume the risk of the outdoors be forced to pay for anyone, whether they be prepared or not, who does? Climbing Mt Washington in the Winter is inherently dangerous.

Why should a person who eats healthy and doesn't smoke be forced to subsidize those who do? Let's eliminate all Medicaid payment for smoking and fat related illnesses.

Why should we even consider a dime of taxpayer money be spent towards SSI payments to those who have been disabled in Motorcycle Accidents. Talk about risky behavior.

And most certainly, why should we pay to help out our neighbor who is so stupid as to get lost in the woods due to no fault but his own!

Because its the right thing to do?

superman

12-31-2008, 13:25

what if the st. bernard with the brandy got to the rescuee before the rescuers? he should get a pass on being drunk

LOL,you're talking about that special pack of St bernards that they keep on Mt Washington to bring brandy to people as they wait to be rescued?:D

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 13:27

Why should a person who doesn't assume the risk of the outdoors be forced to pay for anyone, whether they be prepared or not, who does? Climbing Mt Washington in the Winter is inherently dangerous.

Why should a person who eats healthy and doesn't smoke be forced to subsidize those who do? Let's eliminate all Medicaid payment for smoking and fat related illnesses.

Why should we even consider a dime of taxpayer money be spent towards SSI payments to those who have been disabled in Motorcycle Accidents. Talk about risky behavior!

And most certainly, why should we pay to help out our neighbor who is so stupid as to get lost in the woods due to no fault but his own!

Because its the right thing to do?

Let's take it a step further and make sure the person is able to pay before any attempt is made. It's the only way to be fair.

Ender

12-31-2008, 13:29

I'm pretty sure this law can only apply to NH residents... NH doesn't have the authority to take away the liscenses of people from other states. So, only NH residents are at risk. Odd, since they're the ones more likely to be familiar with the risks of the White Mountains.

Sly

12-31-2008, 13:31

For you to get confused? When did I ever support drinkers doing something illegal? Is it standard practice on WB for mods to make an ass out of themselves now?

Just so we're clear- No, it's not ok to drive drunk. Ever. Someone could get killed or injured.

Unless, I delete your ass, don't pull that mod **** on me.

It simple enough, if you're drinking to the point of being rescued, or causing concerns at a hiker event it's needs to be corrected.

Sly

12-31-2008, 13:34

I'm pretty sure this law can only apply to NH residents... NH doesn't have the authority to take away the liscenses of people from other states. So, only NH residents are at risk. Odd, since they're the ones more likely to be familiar with the risks of the White Mountains.

No really, if I'm not mistaken, now all states have reciprocal laws concerning drivers licenses and such. For instance, you lose your license in MA you can't moved to NH to get one.

emerald

12-31-2008, 13:35

I'm pretty sure this law can only apply to NH residents... NH doesn't have the authority to take away the liscenses of people from other states. So, only NH residents are at risk. Odd, since they're the ones more likely to be familiar with the risks of the White Mountains.

All the more reason they ought to know them and act accordingly.

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 13:35

Unless, I delete your ass, don't pull that mod **** on me.

It simple enough, if you're drinking to the point of being rescued, or causing concerns at a hiker event it's needs to be corrected.

Don't attribute idiotic opinions to me then, smart guy.

No, it isn't that simple. More money is spent on the "responsible" ones so they all need to be charged the fee.

Again, I was the one on the thread who supplied the legal alternative to taking your chances in the campground. What is wrong with you?

Sly

12-31-2008, 13:46

Don't attribute idiotic opinions to me then, smart guy.

No, it isn't that simple. More money is spent on the "responsible" ones so they all need to be charged the fee.

Again, I was the one on the thread who supplied the legal alternative to taking your chances in the campground. What is wrong with you?

It's appears NH believes if you get in trouble due to no fault of your own, they'll pay the tab for the rescue, unlike if you wander drunk or unprepared into the woods.

Your alternative to not drinking in Pine Grove Furnace, was to either walked 3.7 miles or drive while drinking. That's reasonable? Maybe in your world.

superman

12-31-2008, 13:47

For the most part, we in NH agree to collectively pay for reasonable search and rescues. We choose not to pay for unreasonable search and rescues. We can do this because it's our money that is being spent. The other side of this is the risk to our citizens who perform the search and rescue. There is a risk factor for each search and rescue event and we do not want them to accept more risk than they need to.:-?

emerald

12-31-2008, 13:58

I was the one on the thread who supplied the legal alternative to taking your chances in the campground.

Whether the alternative provided is legal won't be determined by the person who proposed it but rather by authorities in Pennsylvania charged with its enforcement. There may be room for interpretation by LEOs in the field and there are quite a number of regulations which apply.:-?

Campers who respect the rules which apply in the campground aren't taking chances.

I would add all such references might be deleted as they have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or New Hampshire. It's nothing more than the typical off-topic, off-thread, undisciplined discussion which detracts from the intended topic.

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 13:58

It's appears NH believes if you get in trouble due to no fault of your own, they'll pay the tab for the rescue, unlike if you wander drunk or unprepared into the woods.

Your alternative to not drinking in Pine Grove Furnace, was to either walked 3.7 miles or drive while drinking. That's reasonable? Maybe in your world.

No fault of your own? Like, if you get dropped off by kidnappers in the middle of the woods? It simply isn't logical.

I'm a hiker. 3.7 is an hour for me. I've walked further for Doyle fries. And driving from the gathering back to the campsite is obviously what I was getting at. Stay the night there, sleep it off and then meet up the next day. I thought that was pretty obvious... You're starting to piss me off.

Ender

12-31-2008, 13:59

No really, if I'm not mistaken, now all states have reciprocal laws concerning drivers licenses and such. For instance, you lose your license in MA you can't moved to NH to get one.

Huh... didn't know that. So, if NH pulls your liscense, MA (or CT or CA) would have to pull it on you? It could be that way, I just don't know the law well enough. :)

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 13:59

Whether the option offerred is legal won't be determined by the person who proposed it but rather by authorities in Pennsylvania charged with its enforcement. There is quite a bit of room for interpretation by LEOs in the field.:-?

I would add all such references might be deleted as they have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or New Hampshire. It's nothing more than the typical off-topic, off-thread WhiteBlaze baiting.

Go back and look at the laws. The only problem I see is the staying for more than one night. There is no ban on alcohol.

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 13:59

Whether the option offerred is legal won't be determined by the person who proposed it but rather by authorities in Pennsylvania charged with its enforcement. There is quite a bit of room for interpretation by LEOs in the field.:-?

I would add all such references might be deleted as they have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or New Hampshire. It's nothing more than the typical off-topic, off-thread WhiteBlaze baiting.

Tell it to the mod.

Ender

12-31-2008, 14:01

All the more reason they ought to know them and act accordingly.

Agreed! :)

emerald

12-31-2008, 14:04

Tell it to the mod.

I believe I just did and you repeated my original post twice.

superman

12-31-2008, 14:06

Huh... didn't know that. So, if NH pulls your liscense, MA (or CT or CA) would have to pull it on you? It could be that way, I just don't know the law well enough. :)

There used to be a tri state law that only apllied to three NE states but now it's been expanded greatly. I don't think it covers all states and all laws. It was spear headed for nabbing dead beat parents and DUIs but I believe it has gone much further. Since people are so mobile in this country the states have found that they need to work collectively on many issues.

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 14:07

I believe I just did.

Sorry, I thought that was directed at me too.

Skyline

12-31-2008, 16:29

In principle, I think the NH law is a good thing.

What I do not understand is how it is decided what was a "justified" S+R that will not involve a fee, and what is a "reckless" chargeable event? Who gets to decide? Is there a set of precise criteria being used, or is it up to individuals' whims on any given day?

There are certainly some obvious examples of each extreme. What about those that are in a gray area?

rickb

12-31-2008, 16:38

Not long ago sending your young kids out the back door to play in the woods with instructions to be back before dinner was good parenting.

Now the State would take those kids away from you for being so reckless with regard to their safety.

I am not so concerned about what criteria the Authorities might apply this year, but who knows how that criteria might evolve over time.

Some people think hiking alone is dangerous now.

Slo-go'en

12-31-2008, 16:57

In principle, I think the NH law is a good thing.

What I do not understand is how it is decided what was a "justified" S+R that will not involve a fee, and what is a "reckless" chargeable event?

Read the article. Getting drunk and then getting lost in the woods is considered reckless. Pushing on when you should have turned back is considered reckless. Putting yourself and others in danger for no good reason is reckless. Basically, its the tourists who leave thier brain and common sense at home which case the problem.

Pokey2006

12-31-2008, 16:58

In principle, I think the NH law is a good thing.

What I do not understand is how it is decided what was a "justified" S+R that will not involve a fee, and what is a "reckless" chargeable event? Who gets to decide? Is there a set of precise criteria being used, or is it up to individuals' whims on any given day?

There are certainly some obvious examples of each extreme. What about those that are in a gray area?

That's my big problem with this. There can be a fine line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable." What's reasonable to me may unreasonable to you.

Hypocritical of NH, which goes out of its way to attract unprepared tourists to its mountains, then complains when said unprepared tourists get into trouble. Eliminate the huts and you'll eliminate 95 percent of the morons out there in the mountains.

Jack Tarlin

12-31-2008, 17:01

Actually, Pokey, if you're talking about the AMC, if you look at ANY of their publications or guidebooks, especially regarding their huts and campsites, they very strongly suggest that folks carry maps and other essential items.

If people choose to ignore this, that's hardly the fault of the hiking clubs or groups in question.

Pokey2006

12-31-2008, 17:28

I'm not laying blame anywhere. I'm just sayin' that if you have a place that tries its darndest to attract people from all walks of life into the woods, then they need to be prepared for the consequences.

Now, I'm off to do something stupid of my own -- go hiking in the dark in the freezing cold. Hope I don't need to be rescued...oh, that's right, I'll be in Georgia, not NH...

Happy New Year!

mudhead

12-31-2008, 17:38

Interesting how this issue breaks down. Residents seem in favor.

When Maine decides to join the current century, I hope we have SAR payment plans. I won't mind paying for a valued service, should I need it.

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 18:34

What about the person who is "prepared" but still, due to idiocy or whatever, gets lost? It needs to be enforced across the board, no exceptions.

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 18:41

Actually, Pokey, if you're talking about the AMC, if you look at ANY of their publications or guidebooks, especially regarding their huts and campsites, they very strongly suggest that folks carry maps and other essential items.

If people choose to ignore this, that's hardly the fault of the hiking clubs or groups in question.

Carrying a map doesn't mean you know how to use it. You can carry a 100lbs survival kit- doesn't mean you won't get yourself into trouble. I've seen it, I'm sure you have.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, enforce it across the board. The "responsible" ones are the people who are costing the most money, anyway.

superman

12-31-2008, 18:43

What about the person who is "prepared" but still, due to idiocy or whatever, gets lost? It needs to be enforced across the board, no exceptions.

I have every confidence that the New Hampshire authorities will handle these matters in a fair and just way...even if you're a silly person from Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.:)

zoidfu

12-31-2008, 18:51

I have every confidence that the New Hampshire authorities will handle these matters in a fair and just way...even if you're a silly person from Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.:)

I have no such confidence in the "authorities." Fair and just is a fluid idea.

WalkingStick75

12-31-2008, 20:30

When I sectioned the Whites I went out with the hut master from Gale Head hut looking for a lost hiker and was just about to leave looking for another when they located the hiker. Both were hikers with little or no experience.

I hiked in the Alps this last fall, there if you need assistance you get a bill. Same in Canada. I joined the Alpine Club while in the Alps, this membership comes with rescue insurance.

boarstone

12-31-2008, 21:18

I'm so glad I'm here in Maine...in an area where no matter...if your in trouble and can get notice of such to SOMEONE, SOMEONE will respond and not bitch a bit about it...be he/she rescue personnel or the ear on the other end of the phone or the car passing by....and there are those of you who have been the recepient of said rescue, ( I took you back to your bail out point the next year) yet I understand the NH stand...more people, more area with more chances of needless chance taking, novice decisions etc....remember..this is NOT always an AT issue...

emerald

12-31-2008, 21:27

I have no such confidence in the "authorities." Fair and just is a fluid idea.

Sure it is, but that doesn't mean there can be laws and regulations to accomodate the wishes of everyone or that individuals have the right to modify them according to their own whims when they don't like them.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Two Rhode Island hikers have been rescued from a Black Mountain cabin in Jackson, N.H., after fearing one had frostbite from wearing improper gear.

Pasquale Digiovangiacomo (di-gee-oh-VAN-gee-i-COH-moh) and Dean Cooper, both 18 and originally from Cranston, hiked to a cabin they had reserved for the weekend Tuesday afternoon. The men had trouble getting the wood stove started and once it was lit, it gave little heat.

New Hampshire Fish and Game officer Brian Adams said the men were wearing light boots and their sleeping bags were not heavy enough to protect them from the cold. Fearing one had frost bite, the men called for help on a cell phone.

Fish and Game officers brought them better footwear and the men hiked out of the woods around 11 p.m.

Adams said the men will likely be charged for the rescue.

-- by The Associated Press

Wise Old Owl

01-01-2009, 03:29

Thanks Hillwalker, good find. Keep in mind folks that during that phone call they were most likely informed of their rules and the ramifications of the Fish & Game coming out.

What is missing from the thread is the knowledge that the public living in NH are plum tired of paying for rescues in their taxes and in their hunting,fishing licenses as they go up every year. There isn't a popular way to put a license on hiking or walking, so a fine is needed for unprepared dummies, if you read enough of WB it will make you smart enough to avoid calling for help!:-?

Skyline

01-01-2009, 13:09

I have every confidence that the New Hampshire authorities will handle these matters in a fair and just way...even if you're a silly person from Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.:)

In a perfect world.

My questions were, and are:

Does NH have a written definition of precisely what will be a billable "offense?"

If not, then who gets to decide which hiker has been "responsible" and which hiker has been "irresponsible"? Is there any kind of consistency here?

Again, the principle is a good one. Its implementation hasn't been adequately explained here. Hopefully NH (or whatever other states plan to do something similar) dots all its i's and crossed all its t's before putting such a plan into effect. Anyone know?

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Two Rhode Island hikers have been rescued from a Black Mountain cabin in Jackson, N.H., after fearing one had frostbite from wearing improper gear.

Pasquale Digiovangiacomo (di-gee-oh-VAN-gee-i-COH-moh) and Dean Cooper, both 18 and originally from Cranston, hiked to a cabin they had reserved for the weekend Tuesday afternoon. The men had trouble getting the wood stove started and once it was lit, it gave little heat.

New Hampshire Fish and Game officer Brian Adams said the men were wearing light boots and their sleeping bags were not heavy enough to protect them from the cold. Fearing one had frost bite, the men called for help on a cell phone.

Fish and Game officers brought them better footwear and the men hiked out of the woods around 11 p.m.

Adams said the men will likely be charged for the rescue.

-- by The Associated Press

Gotta love the Ocean State (home of the movie Dumb and Dumber).

On this one, you have two city kids (I know 18 is the legal age where a boy becomes a man :-?) who depended upon a cabin keeping them warm and didn't bring sleeping bags warm enough.
There's no substitute for proper gear and the knowledge of how to use it.
Your body is the only source of heat that you can count on (only if you feed and water it properly and keep it dry). Insulation for that meager furnace is vital for survival in the winter.

My only question is whether or not EMS will bill them for the boot rental? ;)

Frosty

01-01-2009, 15:07

That sounds like the residents of New Hampshire. They pay taxes for a service they may never need. If they don't like it, they're free to leave.You have it backwards.

How about this: people who need rescue because of their negligence will pay for pay for their rescue. If you don't like it you are free not to come to NH to hike.

Frosty

01-01-2009, 15:16

In a perfect world.

My questions were, and are:

Does NH have a written definition of precisely what will be a billable "offense?"

If not, then who gets to decide which hiker has been "responsible" and which hiker has been "irresponsible"? Is there any kind of consistency here?

Again, the principle is a good one. Its implementation hasn't been adequately explained here. Hopefully NH (or whatever other states plan to do something similar) dots all its i's and crossed all its t's before putting such a plan into effect. Anyone know? You are just learning of this. The policy has been in effect for a long time, just not enforced.

You should spend less time worrying about minute points of law and more about being prepared when you hike.

If you get charged and don't like it, take the state to court over it. The courts will decide it is right. Courts decide on negligence cases all the time.

No one is charged for getting hurt and needing rescued. That is not the problem. The problem is people who do not have the gear or knowledge to take care of themselves.

The alternative is charging everyone a big fee for hiking. To me that is worse. WHy should hikers who are prepared pay for those who are not?

The fact is that someone is going to pay for the rescue. It isn't free. Someone will pay.

The question is should it be:
a) all, hikers, including who did not need rescue (hiker fees)
b) townsfolk who happen to live in the vicinity
c) the person who went into the woods unprepared

So who should pay?

rickb

01-01-2009, 15:36

Who should pay for the person who elects to ride a motorcycle and gets into a debilitating accident, Frosty?

Right now taxpayers will pay for his nursing home care and provide SSI.

Riding a bike is inherently dangerous. More so in NH where so many don't wear a helmet.

Why should I have to pay anything?

Answer: Its the right thing to do.

zoidfu

01-01-2009, 17:01

You have it backwards.

How about this: people who need rescue because of their negligence will pay for pay for their rescue. If you don't like it you are free not to come to NH to hike.

Duh.

You don't even know what the issue is here. They have no definition of what negligence entails except drinking, which is a gimme. Technically, anyone who get's themself in trouble is negligent in some manner. They're playing fast and loose with the law and it doesn't make sense to limit it to "negligent" people.

zoidfu

01-01-2009, 17:04

You are just learning of this. The policy has been in effect for a long time, just not enforced.

You should spend less time worrying about minute points of law and more about being prepared when you hike.

If you get charged and don't like it, take the state to court over it. The courts will decide it is right. Courts decide on negligence cases all the time.

No one is charged for getting hurt and needing rescued. That is not the problem. The problem is people who do not have the gear or knowledge to take care of themselves.

The alternative is charging everyone a big fee for hiking. To me that is worse. WHy should hikers who are prepared pay for those who are not?

The fact is that someone is going to pay for the rescue. It isn't free. Someone will pay.

The question is should it be:
a) all, hikers, including who did not need rescue (hiker fees)
b) townsfolk who happen to live in the vicinity
c) the person who went into the woods unprepared

So who should pay?

lol yeah, shelling out $600 or more to a lawyer to fight a $150 ticket. Sure.

Homer&Marje

01-01-2009, 17:10

I was talking about S&R calls.

Citizens that own "real property" in a municipality pay, through assessed property taxes, a fee for such services [fire, police, etc.], should the need arise. If, I never need these services, I am still required to pay for the likelyhood that I may need them.

Should not the fees we are charged to hike in some areas (some quite exorbitant) cover then for those eventualities of distress?

I've never had to be rescued thankfully. I don't think S+R should be charged to anyone, but those who misuse the system should some how have to repay the inconvenience. I liked the community service idea.

emerald

01-01-2009, 17:23

Should not the fees we are charged to hike in some areas (some quite exorbitant) cover then for those eventualities of distress?

Where might those areas be? I thought hiking on the A.T. was free. If you are refering to AMC's huts, I wasn't aware hikers are required to stay there.

I don't think S+R should be charged to anyone, but those who misuse the system should somehow have to repay the inconvenience.

Where there are costs, they must be borne by someone. I find it interesting those who seem to be whining the most aren't from New Hampshire.

Bearpaw

01-01-2009, 17:44

I see enforcing the law as an attempt at convincing hikers to take responsibility for themselves. Most hikers do, and they use common sense.

It's the 5% of knuckleheads that muck up pretty much any place they go in society that are going to be most affected.

4eyedbuzzard

01-01-2009, 17:47

Very few people have been charged over the years, and there is no plan according to statements by S&R to go off half-cocked and start charging people who have accidents in the wilderness. But as other's have noted, getting into an emergency situation because you were reckless, and that may include grossly unprepared, or thought all you needed to hike was sneakers and a cell phone, is now likely to get you a fine.

If anything, I'll bet the authorities error on the side of giving those rescued the benefit of the doubt. This isn't a plan to generate large revenues, just to offset expenses incurred on rescues that should never happen if reasonable behavior and practice are followed.

emerald

01-01-2009, 18:08

... now likely to get you a fine.

Fines are punitive, aren't they? Isn't this really more like reimbursement for services performed which are requested by individuals who fail to prepare themselves for what might be anticipated?

Toolshed

01-01-2009, 20:35

It would be interesting to determine if most rescues are for out of towners or tourists. Folks who are not fully aware of what they are getting into. Just wondering because those folks bring money into the local economy and a solution could be created based on that. just my 2 pennies.:-?
Mostly Massholes.

MOWGLI

01-01-2009, 20:38

How many lost hikers or SAR responders can dance on the head of a pin?

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Two Rhode Island hikers have been rescued from a Black Mountain cabin in Jackson, N.H., after fearing one had frostbite from wearing improper gear.

Adams said the men will likely be charged for the rescue.

-- by The Associated Press

Looks like they brought some dry kindling part way (http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=R.I.+teens+safe+after+cold+n ight+on+Black+Mountain&articleId=02dc5240-4904-4a32-88a1-0c68bceb0966) to the cabin but dumped it and other gear to lighten their loads

That sounds like the residents of New Hampshire. They pay taxes for a service they may never need. If they don't like it, they're free to leave.

New Hampshire = Live Free or Die.

Or at this time of the year, "Live, Freeze, or Die"

Spoken as a native.

4eyedbuzzard

01-01-2009, 22:00

Fines are punitive, aren't they? Isn't this really more like a reimbursement for services performed which are requested by individuals who fail to prepare themselves for might be anticipated?
Call it what you will. When a court orders you to pay a Reimbursement for Public Agency Response Services, it's a punitive fine in my book.

TITLE XII
PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 153-A
EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND TRAUMA SERVICES

Reimbursement for Public Agency Response Services

Section 153-A:24

153-A:24 Responsibility for Public Agency Response Services. –
I. A person shall be liable for response expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person:
(a) Negligently operates a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug and thereby proximately causes any incident resulting in a public agency response;
(b) Takes another person or persons hostage or threatens to harm himself or another person, thereby proximately causing any incident resulting in an appropriate public agency response; or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident.
Source. 1999, 345:6, eff. July 1, 1999.

Wise Old Owl

01-01-2009, 22:17

I knew someone would find it.

Sly

01-01-2009, 23:28

About 300 yards up the trail, the two realized they were carrying too much gear and dumped lightweight sleeping bags, kindling and other gear on the trail.

They made it to the cabin at about 3 p.m., "surprised to find that the cabin was not equipped with blankets or other amenities," even though the forest service Web site describes the cabin as "rustic," with those who use it expected to carry in their own bedding, food and water.

The teens were unable to get a fire started in the woodstove and cold and wet, they called for help at about 6 p.m.

LOL... too funny.

rickb

01-02-2009, 00:00

A transcript of the 911 call would probably be a real hoot.

The folks at SmokingGun probably do do NH, though.

woodsy

01-02-2009, 09:51

In summary:

I hope those who are more informed about rules and regs will take a closer look at their skills before they go out if they don't want to risk a costly rescue.

If they want help bad enough, they'll pay for it. Maybe, if this were tried for a while, one might see wiser choices, less "help me I made a stupid choice"..."bail me out, out of the kindness of our nations/states/counties already limited resources".

.

It needs to be socially unacceptable to go out at 230PM, then punch 911 because it gets dark.

TSome folks have raised stupid to an art form. Yes, it is a matter of cost. The number of easily prevented rescues has increased while the cost of each rescue has increased. Something had to be done...NH was forced into this action. I'd like to see a lot more public awareness go with this change. I'd like people to know in advance that “stupid” will cost them. This change does not impact at all on prepared "**** happens" rescues.

With the new NH law, people will be much less likely to call 911, even if they need help. And that's a good thing. NH is trying to encourage people to be both more prepared and more self reliant. Many people that call for help are in situations that they can get out of without assistance.

Hopefully with this new law, people will only call 911 when they are in a truly life-threatening situation. Having to spend an unplanned night sleeping outside is NOT an emergency. Its inconvenient and uncomfortable.

As a resident of New Hampshire, I think this new rule is great.

In life, actions have consequences, and one pays for mistakes, especially stupid ones.

This should include stupid mistakes and decisions made while hiking.

Do something stupid and need a rescue and you're going to get fined. Don't pay and you're going to lose your license. What's so unreasonable about that?

Why should a person who doesn't assume the risk of the outdoors be forced to pay for anyone, whether they be prepared or not, who does? Climbing Mt Washington in the Winter is inherently dangerous.

And most certainly, why should we pay to help out our neighbor who is so stupid as to get lost in the woods due to no fault but his own!

For the most part, we in NH agree to collectively pay for reasonable search and rescues. We choose not to pay for unreasonable search and rescues. We can do this because it's our money that is being spent. The other side of this is the risk to our citizens who perform the search and rescue. There is a risk factor for each search and rescue event and we do not want them to accept more risk than they need to.:-?

In principle, I think the NH law is a good thing.

Read the article. Getting drunk and then getting lost in the woods is considered reckless. Pushing on when you should have turned back is considered reckless. Putting yourself and others in danger for no good reason is reckless. Basically, its the tourists who leave thier brain and common sense at home which case the problem.

What is missing from the thread is the knowledge that the public living in NH are plum tired of paying for rescues in their taxes and in their hunting,fishing licenses as they go up every year. There isn't a popular way to put a license on hiking or walking, so a fine is needed for unprepared dummies, if you read enough of WB it will make you smart enough to avoid calling for help!:-?

There's no substitute for proper gear and the knowledge of how to use it.

How about this: people who need rescue because of their negligence will pay for pay for their rescue. If you don't like it you are free not to come to NH to hike.

No one is charged for getting hurt and needing rescued. That is not the problem. The problem is people who do not have the gear or knowledge to take care of themselves.

Where there are costs, they must be borne by someone. I find it interesting those who seem to be whining the most aren't from New Hampshire.

I see enforcing the law as an attempt at convincing hikers to take responsibility for themselves. Most hikers do, and they use common sense.

It's the 5% of knuckleheads that muck up pretty much any place they go in society that are going to be most affected.

But as other's have noted, getting into an emergency situation because you were reckless, and that may include grossly unprepared, or thought all you needed to hike was sneakers and a cell phone, is now likely to get you a fine.

.

The rational majority have spoken...
spread the word...

woodsy

01-02-2009, 09:55

woops, deleted duplicate post.

makoboy

01-02-2009, 10:53

In Colorado you are pretty much responsible for the cost of your S&R regardless of how prepared / unprepared or responsible / negilgent you were in getting yourself into a bad situation. Easy way around this is the S&R Fund system that CO has set up. You pay into the fund and become eligible for it to reimburse your S&R costs with every fishing or hunting license, snowmobile, boat or off road registration, you buy, or you can get it seperately (only $10.25).

Sly

01-02-2009, 11:09

In Colorado you are pretty much responsible for the cost of your S&R regardless of how prepared / unprepared or responsible / negilgent you were in getting yourself into a bad situation. Easy way around this is the S&R Fund system that CO has set up. You pay into the fund and become eligible for it to reimburse your S&R costs with every fishing or hunting license, snowmobile, boat or off road registration, you buy, or you can get it seperately (only $10.25).

Actually, CORSAR is only $3 a year but more like $5 when you buy it through an outfitter. They get $2 for signing you up.

http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/fa/sar/sar_purchase.html

makoboy

01-02-2009, 11:14

Actually, CORSAR is only $3 a year but more like $5 when you buy it through an outfitter. They get $2 for signing you up.

http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/fa/sar/sar_purchase.html

Your right, i quoted the cost of the Habitat Stamp by accident, which also includes S&R. But the point remains that the CO has developed a system that takes the burden of the expense off the shoulders of the public and puts it on those who are at risk of needing rescue, and for a small cost.

JAK

01-02-2009, 11:45

The problem is, we encourage reckless consumers, not competent citizens.

Your right, i quoted the cost of the Habitat Stamp by accident, which also includes S&R. But the point remains that the CO has developed a system that takes the burden of the expense off the shoulders of the public and puts it on those who are at risk of needing rescue, and for a small cost.

Yup, it's a great program. I'm surprised more states don't implement it. However, under the guidelines it doesn't pay for medical transport. It would be nice if there was a separate program for that.

Doctari

01-02-2009, 13:58

My favorite stupid "Hiker" story, sorry if i don't have all the details exact:

A few years ago a couple was 'Mountain climbing" in a western state, They had an early version of a GPS, (the ones that just told you coordnates) & a cell phone. No map or clue.

Time passes.

Then they got tired / lost, called the local ranger station "we are tired & lost, how do we get to the top of the mountain from where we are?" they were given directions as best the ranger could based on minimal info & the GPS cords.

Time passes.

Them: "We are tired & lost come rescue us"
Ranger: "The summit is just a few hundred yards west or; Just turn around & follow the trail back down the way you came."
Them: "But we are tired, come rescue us!"
Ranger: "Just turn around & follow the trail back down the way you came. We don't do rescues for people just tired."
Them: "But we are tired, come rescue us! If you don't we will sue you!!!!!!!"
SO, at great expense, a helecoptor was sent to "rescue them", about 30 seconds after lifting off with the "Victims" they saw that they were indeed just a few yards from the summit & DEMANDED to be set down on it, THEN flew down the mountain. When the rescue drew refused they started screaming that the rescue crew was kidnapping them.
Needless to say the crew did not put them down on the mountain, & I do believe they were sent a bill for the full amount of the rescue. I never heard what became of that, but I do know that false accusations against a federal official carries a rather heavy penalty. :p

Having been on quite a few "bogus" 911 calls, I agree that those that enter the wilderness unprepared, especally like those mentioned above, should EXPECT to pay for a rescue.

Many voluteer rescue squads & members pay out of their own pockets to rescue usually ungrateful people. In 27 years as a firefighter / paramedic, I can count without taking my shoes off: the number of times I have been thanked for a rescue or 911 call. About 10 of those years were as a volunteer. Yet if I didn't do it (volunteer), some would have died. LW, do you REALLY want us to stop volunteering? I suspect not!

sheepdog

01-02-2009, 14:05

My favorite stupid "Hiker" story, sorry if i don't have all the details exact:

A few years ago a couple was 'Mountain climbing" in a western state, They had an early version of a GPS, (the ones that just told you coordnates) & a cell phone. No map or clue.

Time passes.

Then they got tired / lost, called the local ranger station "we are tired & lost, how do we get to the top of the mountain from where we are?" they were given directions as best the ranger could based on minimal info & the GPS cords.

Time passes.

Them: "We are tired & lost come rescue us"
Ranger: "The summit is just a few hundred yards west or; Just turn around & follow the trail back down the way you came."
Them: "But we are tired, come rescue us!"
Ranger: "Just turn around & follow the trail back down the way you came. We don't do rescues for people just tired."
Them: "But we are tired, come rescue us! If you don't we will sue you!!!!!!!"
SO, at great expense, a helecoptor was sent to "rescue them", about 30 seconds after lifting off with the "Victims" they saw that they were indeed just a few yards from the summit & DEMANDED to be set down on it, THEN flew down the mountain. When the rescue drew refused they started screaming that the rescue crew was kidnapping them.
Needless to say the crew did not put them down on the mountain, & I do believe they were sent a bill for the full amount of the rescue. I never heard what became of that, but I do know that false accusations against a federal official carries a rather heavy penalty. :p

Having been on quite a few "bogus" 911 calls, I agree that those that enter the wilderness unprepared, especally like those mentioned above, should EXPECT to pay for a rescue.

Many voluteer rescue squads & members pay out of their own pockets to rescue usually ungrateful people. In 27 years as a firefighter / paramedic, I can count without taking my shoes off: the number of times I have been thanked for a rescue or 911 call. About 10 of those years were as a volunteer. Yet if I didn't do it (volunteer), some would have died. LW, do you REALLY want us to stop volunteering? I suspect not!

Should have asked for a pizza too. Nothing helps a good rescue out like a nice pie and garlic bread. Maybe a couple cupichinos.

www.hikesafe.com (http://www.hikesafe.com)That's a great link. Their gear list is good and their 10 essentials list is one of the more sensible variants I've seen...
http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/planning_your_hike/gear_list/full_gear_list

I really like their Learn to Rescue Yourself approach...
http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/planning_your_hike/what_to_do_if_lost

Mags

01-02-2009, 15:46

In Colorado you are pretty much responsible for the cost of your S&R regardless of how prepared / unprepared or responsible / negilgent you were in getting yourself into a bad situation

That is incorrect.

Much like NH, the Colorado authorities will generally not charge for you SAR *unless* you were negligent. Even them, the definition is pretty loose.

A friend of mine suffered from altitude sickness on a hut trip. (Can happen even to people used to altitude). He had to medivaced out. The guard unit who did the evac did not charge my friend because they have to get in so many training hours per year AND my friend was in this situation through no fault his own.

Finally, the CORSAR card is NOT insurance. This is the biggest misconception about the card.

From what I wrote earlier

Fro the CORSAR website:

The CORSAR Card Is Not Insurance

The card is not insurance and does not reimburse individuals nor does it pay for medical transport. Medical transport includes helicopter flights or ground ambulance. If aircraft are used as a search vehicle, those costs are reimbursed by the fund. If the aircraft becomes a medical transport due to a medical emergency, the medical portion of the transport is not covered.

SO..again, The CORSAR Card Is Not Insurance

Basically, it helps fund the rescues. The areas that get the most rescues also tend to also have the lowest taxe base and pay a higher percentage of their income for rescues than a wealthier county. The CORSAR funds helps fund the trainining, equipment and rescues from a general fund.

Think of it as a charitable donation card.

Basically, you will not get charged for an SAR *UNLESS* you did a bone-headed thing due to you not being prepared. I suspect there is more to his story than the article is saying.

When a friend of mine suffered from massive altitude sickness and had to be helicoptered out, he was not charged a dime. The local authorities have to get X amount of hours of training in per year and put the SAR towards that.

If my friend had worn blue jeans, did not have equipment, etc. he may have been charged. I believe New Hampshire works the same way now.

See http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/s..._purchase.html (http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/sar/sar_purchase.html) for more details.

Homer&Marje

01-02-2009, 15:49

Where might those areas be? I thought hiking on the A.T. was free. If you are refering to AMC's huts, I wasn't aware hikers are required to stay there.

Where there are costs, they must be borne by someone. I find it interesting those who seem to be whining the most aren't from New Hampshire.

I have never whined, and never will complain about what I get charged to get permits, stay at a campground, campsite, shelter or hut.

As for me living in New Hampshire, I don't. Consider yourself lucky that you do. It's one of my absolute favorite places to go because it has done a good job of keeping many places pristine the way they should be. All's I was saying is that some amount of budgetary assessment should be done to allocate funds collected to fund S+R.

S+R comes with the territory of backcountry hiking, skiing, snowmobiling etc.... When you buy a house or a car, you get insurance. You may never use it, but you assume that your money is going to get you covered in the eventuality that something happens correct?

rlharris

01-02-2009, 19:15

Many of them are still in place and still in use in the WMNF. One can also purchase annual and weekly parking passes at many outfitters and information centers.

A couple of years ago the forest service put out self service kiosks at the more popuar trail heads. You would put your 5 dollars in and you would get a one time pass that you would put on your dash. a ranger would come by and ticket anyone who did not have the permit on the dash.

They are now gone. Don't know the whole story. Usually stayed away from the more popular trail heads and avoided the crowds.

rlharris

01-02-2009, 19:20

It is episodes like this one (http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=R.I.+teens+safe+after+cold+n ight+on+Black+Mountain&articleId=02dc5240-4904-4a32-88a1-0c68bceb0966) that lead the state government to take action.

Dumped their inadequate gear along the trail because they realized they were carrying too much? :eek: Great galloping gobs of greasy gopher gut!

zoidfu

01-02-2009, 19:36

NH want's the tourists money but doesn't want to clean up after some of those that they attract... how droll. I'll bet you that tourism dollars far exceed what's payed out for the occasional S&R.

Just wait, someone's going to avoid calling for help because of this and their situation's going to get worse. There's already documented cases of this and even some of people that avoid the searchers because of the cost... I hope that money is worth it to all of you... not that you'll ever see a penny of it.

Sly

01-02-2009, 19:48

zoidfu2, you're flip flopping. Earlier you said everyone should pay. Now you're implying rescues should be free.

Wise Old Owl

01-02-2009, 19:56

Dave (Zoidfu2), much of what we are talking about both in news and on the NH websites are available here on the INTERNET. How about you look into the problem a little with Google and back up your statements with facts, who knows you might come back with a better solution to the problem. If you look hard enough some SAR post individual rescue reports dating back five years.

As it stands right now this legislation might get adopted by other states, might be good to be "in the know"

superman

01-02-2009, 19:58

Well, we in NH have spoken and it's been made into law. We all hope that it helps people prepare for their activities rather than rely on their cell phones. It's simple who decides who has to pay...not you. :-?

zoidfu

01-02-2009, 20:22

zoidfu2, you're flip flopping. Earlier you said everyone should pay. Now you're implying rescues should be free.

It should be one or the other. I'd side with free because of because of reasons I stated a comment ago.

zoidfu

01-02-2009, 20:41

Dave (Zoidfu2), much of what we are talking about both in news and on the NH websites are available here on the INTERNET. How about you look into the problem a little with Google and back up your statements with facts, who knows you might come back with a better solution to the problem. If you look hard enough some SAR post individual rescue reports dating back five years.

As it stands right now this legislation might get adopted by other states, might be good to be "in the know"

This is from North Shore S&R- Their position is

Why Not Charge For Rescues?
This is a topic that heats up periodically. Although there is clearly a need for proper funding of volunteer search & rescue teams across the province, charging for rescues is not the way to accomplish this.

Our Official Position Is:
North Shore Rescue is comprised of expert volunteer members who work under local police authority. The Rescue Team has performed search and rescue operations since 1965 without charge to the subject(s).

NSR firmly believes that training and education are the keystones in the solution to this issue. We believe that the individual must accept responsibility for his or her actions and that training in proper outdoors skills and for self-rescue might be the quickest and most effective method of resolving most rescue situations.
However, no one should ever be made to feel they must delay in notifying the proper authorities of a search or rescue incident out of fear of possible charges.
NSR is proud to be able to provide search and rescue at NO cost and have NO plans to charge in the future.

There are two basic reasons for our position:
The faster the callout the better the outcome .It is essential that the team be called out as quickly as possible. For every hour that passes an injured subject's condition deteriorates; a hypothermic subject can slip into unconciousness; a lost subject can stumble further away or slip over a cliff. An hour can make a dramatic difference in a rescue situation, increasing the possible search area each minute. We don't want anybody delaying calling 911, hoping that little Johnny will finally make his way out the mountains on his own, simply from the fear of possibly being charged for the rescue. For the missing person's sake we need to be called as soon as possible.

Hiding from rescuers is a bad idea .We need to avoid the situation where the subject hides from the searchers thinking, "If I get to the carpark before they find me then I won't be charged." There have been instances in the past where the subject has deliberately tried to avoid the searchers. This makes our job substantially more difficult and goes against the entire search and rescue effort.
There will always be cases where the subject does something completely and obviously irresponsible, necessitating a rescue. Then the discussion starts anew about charging for rescues. Keep in mind that such cases are relatively rare.

This is from American Whitewater-

Fees can create delays that can increase risks. From a practical level, charging for rescues often delays the initial request for help, which increases the risks for rescuers and subjects alike.

By the time a lost, capsized, or injured boater (or good Samaritan or witness) calls for a rescue, that boater may be in worse condition or in a less accessible location, and the weather or daylight may have deteriorated. All of these factors can increase the complexity and cost of performing rescue services. Because of these concerns, American Whitewater agrees with the Mountain Rescue Association, an organization representing 80 volunteer rescue teams from throughout the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, which is on record opposing charges for rescues because �no one should ever be made to feel they must delay in notifying the proper authorities of a search or rescue incident out of fear of possible charges.� NSAR recognizes this and affirms that the agencies �will not allow a matter of reimbursement of cost among themselves to delay response to any person in danger or distress.�

Fees proposals tend to be discriminatory: Charging one highly visible and readily identifiable user group � in this case, boaters � for rescue services that are provided free of charge to all other National Park visitors is blatantly discriminatory.

According to 2000 NPS data, 35.3 percent of all National Park search and rescue missions were for �other� causes, which generally are not recreation related and cannot easily be categorized. Hikers, boaters, swimmers, and climbers accounted for 24.4%, 10.3%, 9.8%, and 3.6% of rescues respectively; 9% of rescues were for �mutual aid� in which NPS officials responded to outside organizations on adjacent lands, such as a state park or Forest Service property.

No correlation to cost: There is no direct correlation between the type of visitor activity and the cost of a rescue. Searches for lost hikers and downed aircraft can be exponentially more expensive than locating and transporting an injured boater from a known location in a river valley.

Cumulative rescue costs are relatively low: In 1999, the total cost per visitor of performing all search and rescue activities was a mere 1.2 cents � a small fraction of the total cost of $6.90 per visitor for all NPS functions.

Though most of the search and rescue money in Alaska is spent on looking for missing planes, lost hikers and hunters, and disabled boats, that�s not what stirs the debate. It�s the rescues � often highly publicized rescues � of climbers on Mount McKinley.
- Anchorage Daily News, August 1998

Debate driven by prejudice of risk rather than reality: Neither boaters nor climbers should be singled out to pay for services that are free to other Park visitors simply because they are highly visible, participants are few in number, or their recreational pursuit is perceived as dangerous by some.

zoidfu

01-02-2009, 20:50

Don't put a price on rescue
Editorial of the Oregonian - 06/09/02
When the costs of mountain rescues grow steep, when you see a helicopter tumble down Mount Hood, it's tempting to snap off the TV news and conclude: Send the bill to the climbers.
Why, after all, should they get the thrill of climbing, and the rest of us get the bill for saving them?
It's nearly always mountaineering accidents that start these arguments. Never mind that climbers are responsible for a tiny share of search and rescue costs -- 3.6 percent of all National Park Service rescue costs in the year 2000. Never mind that much more is spent every year rescuing hikers, boaters, hunters, and even swimmers. Mountain rescues are spectacular, they're usually televised, and most of the people watching at home couldn't imagine themselves lying in a tangle of ropes in a crevasse at 10,000 feet. It's easy to conclude: Bill'em.
It's not that simple. All over the world, governments, rescue organizations and climbing groups have struggled with ways to allocate search and rescue costs. In the Alps, Swiss authorities require mountaineers to buy climbing insurance for rescues. The insurance, however, has led to a false sense of security -- the number and severity of accidents and rescues in the Alps has greatly increased. Making payment for rescue explicit has actually encouraged more risky behavior.
Many American climbers already carry limited rescue insurance. Members of the American Alpine Club, the nation's largest organization, and the Portland-based Mazamas have group policies that provide rescue insurance up to several thousand dollars per climber. That won't pay for the $9.3 million Pave Hawk HH-60 helicopter, but it's often enough to cover the costs of the mostly volunteer groups that do most mountain rescues.
Search and rescue experts almost uniformly oppose charging for their services, even in cases of negligence and stupidity. They believe charging could delay requests for help, leading to worsening injuries, weather or other conditions, and ultimately to more difficult, dangerous rescues.
Rescue insurance also can create a "duty to rescue," posing more risks for rescuers. If climbers pre-pay for rescue, they expect it on demand -- even when the weather is bad, or nightfall close.
Oregon's search and rescue authorities have rarely used a law that allows them to charge up to $500 to rescue people who get in trouble due to negligence. The U.S. Coast Guard never charges anyone, not even the two millionaires who crashed their hot air balloon attempting to circumnavigate the globe. That left taxpayers with a $175,000 bill.
It's hard often to tally up rescue costs. The Air Force Reserve and the Oregon National Guard rescue units that deployed helicopters on Mount Hood are military units that must train constantly for various rescue scenarios -- including mountain rescues -- so they are prepared to rescue downed military aircraft and damaged ships. Their costs are billed to a training budget whether time is spent in training or on real-life rescues. All taxpayers, not just climbers, have a stake in their training.
Nearly everyone at Mount Hood during the recent rescue was working as a volunteer. Portland Mountain Rescue, which led the recovery, had 18 volunteer members on site. They paid for their own gas, mileage and time off from work. American Medical Response, an ambulance company, had 11 volunteers with its Reach and Treat Team, which it operates as a community service.
We're open to creative ideas about spreading the burden of rescue costs. But once you begin charging fees or requiring rescue insurance, where would you stop? Should every fisherman on the Columbia River, or every other port in Oregon, have to show proof of rescue insurance before leaving the dock? Should every overdue hiker or cross-country skier who prompts a search get a bill in the mail? Every snowmobiler? Every hunter?
It's better to leave well enough alone. No one yet has come up with a better system than what the Pacific Northwest already has: committed, well-trained volunteer rescuers backed by military pararescue teams that get valuable training out of every rescue.

Wise Old Owl

01-02-2009, 21:00

Hard to compare the US Coast Guard to a volunteer SAR, but Dave I read all this and I have a deeper perspective of what you are trying to say...

I am Impressed! good work!

did anything you find change your some of your beliefs?

superman

01-02-2009, 21:02

Hey Zoid,

You should have been in Concord when they debated this issue. Since you weren't, I suggest you file a "freind of the court brief' for when the law gets tested...if it does.:)

zoidfu

01-02-2009, 21:05

Hard to compare the US Coast Guard to a volunteer SAR, but Dave I read all this and I have a deeper perspective of what you are trying to say...

I am Impressed! good work!

did anything you find change your some of your beliefs?

I'm torn. I can see where you guys are coming from with drunks wandering off... but it's just better to bite the bullet on those cases, which are the minority(at least according the numbers provided in the OP) it would seem. It's frustrating but that's what you get when you invite people to enjoy your mountains. We all pay for taxes that go towards things we don't agree with, that's just a fact of life.

Wise Old Owl

01-02-2009, 21:20

That's Ok, just so you understand that nobody can legislate responsibility in our society. There will always be a dichotomy of folk from all walks of life hiking a trail. Tripping up the folk that abuse the system is just Americana, hence the success of Jay's Leno's Stupid Criminals although that would be unrelated.

Pokey2006

01-03-2009, 02:37

In a perfect world.

My questions were, and are:

Does NH have a written definition of precisely what will be a billable "offense?"

If not, then who gets to decide which hiker has been "responsible" and which hiker has been "irresponsible"? Is there any kind of consistency here?

Again, the principle is a good one. Its implementation hasn't been adequately explained here. Hopefully NH (or whatever other states plan to do something similar) dots all its i's and crossed all its t's before putting such a plan into effect. Anyone know?

I just have to point out that this is a VERY good question. NH has a history of passing laws without crossing the t's and dotting the i's. One law that still bugs me, just one example: they wanted to protect people's privacy. So they passed a law barring the release of motor vehicle registry information. Sounds good on paper, right? Well, it had an unintended result: police departments could no longer release the dates of birth or addresses of people they arrested. Even someone charged with murder, all the public is "supposed" to get is the name, not how old they are or where they live. Why? Because the overly-large legislature in NH didn't cross their t's and dot their i's, so police departments were left with a vague law that they were afraid to unintentionally violate.

Never trust NH to pass a well-thought-out and detailed law.

Tin Man

01-03-2009, 02:43

Never trust NH to pass a well-thought-out and detailed law.

you don't really think that is a NH-only problem, do you? :-?

Pokey2006

01-03-2009, 02:50

Naw, but NH is worse than some. Personally, I blame the everyone's a member of the legislature thing they have going one. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in the state is at the statehouse, writing their laws. Too many cooks in the kitchen, you know.

Vague, poorly written laws are prone to abuse.

superman

01-03-2009, 09:11

Naw, but NH is worse than some. Personally, I blame the everyone's a member of the legislature thing they have going one. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in the state is at the statehouse, writing their laws. Too many cooks in the kitchen, you know.

Vague, poorly written laws are prone to abuse.

Damn participatory democracy! People know that only attorneys should be allowed to make laws. The damn fools even let me testify a couple times.:rolleyes:

mudhead

01-03-2009, 09:18

Damn participatory democracy! People know that only attorneys should be allowed to make laws. The damn fools even let me testify a couple times.:rolleyes:

Now that is scary.

Egads

01-03-2009, 09:55

ALERT - Thread Drift

Why do we at the White Blaze community enable the incompetent and inexperienced poster's to hike?

We frequently respond to new threads asking basic questions such as do I need rain gear, what rating bag do I need, do I need a tent, what is the weather like at someplace in pick a month, how do I get back to my car after my hike, etc... These people are Darwin Award candidates. IMO a hiker needs to accept responsibility for his self. There is no substitute for performing your own research about the trail, possible weather conditions, gear, food & water supply points. Then going out to test your self and gear at safe locations by car camping or weekend excursions, building an experience base and learning your limits. Then not venturing irresponsibly beyond the conditions that you can safely do so. Of course there will always be events and accidents that can get experienced and responsible hikers into trouble such as falling, heart attack, falling tree limbs, lightning, multiple bee stings, etc...

Back to the point, a person incapable of making basic decisions does not belong outside the house.:-?

http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/hiker_responsibility_code

mudhead

01-03-2009, 10:01

ALERT - Thread Drift

Why do we at the White Blaze community enable the incompetent and inexperienced poster's to hike?

We frequently respond to new threads asking basic questions such as do I need rain gear, what rating bag do I need, do I need a tent, what is the weather like at someplace in pick a month, how do I get back to my car after my hike, etc... These people are Darwin Award candidates. IMO a hiker needs to accept responsibility for his self. There is no substitute for performing your own research about the trail, possible weather conditions, gear, food & water supply points. Then going out to test your self and gear at safe locations by car camping or weekend excursions, building an experience base and learning your limits. Then not venturing irresponsibly beyond the conditions that you can safely do so. Of course their will always be events and accidents that can get experienced and responsible hikers into trouble such as falling, heart attack, falling tree limbs, lightning, multiple bee stings, etc...

Back to the point, a person incapable of making basic decisions does not belong outside the house.:-?

Good thread starter. Cut and paste that puppy.

woodsy

01-03-2009, 10:15

Beyond paying for S&R costs, the incompetent should also be jailed for endangering the welfare of others...chopper pilots and crew, S&R personnel, Fish and game staff, Park Rangers etc. etc..

The Scribe

01-03-2009, 10:24

I have no such confidence in the "authorities." Fair and just is a fluid idea.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Two Rhode Island hikers have been rescued from a Black Mountain cabin in Jackson, N.H., after fearing one had frostbite from wearing improper gear.

Pasquale Digiovangiacomo (di-gee-oh-VAN-gee-i-COH-moh) and Dean Cooper, both 18 and originally from Cranston, hiked to a cabin they had reserved for the weekend Tuesday afternoon. The men had trouble getting the wood stove started and once it was lit, it gave little heat.

New Hampshire Fish and Game officer Brian Adams said the men were wearing light boots and their sleeping bags were not heavy enough to protect them from the cold. Fearing one had frost bite, the men called for help on a cell phone.

Fish and Game officers brought them better footwear and the men hiked out of the woods around 11 p.m.

Adams said the men will likely be charged for the rescue.

-- by The Associated Press

Just like AAA for hikers.

zoidfu

01-03-2009, 10:34

Would you have confidence that they would find and rescue you?

I'm talking about beaurocrats, not the actual S&R volunteers/workers.

zoidfu

01-03-2009, 10:35

Beyond paying for S&R costs, the incompetent should also be jailed for endangering the welfare of others...chopper pilots and crew, S&R personnel, Fish and game staff, Park Rangers etc. etc..

Good luck making a case with that one. Those people know what they're getting into when they decide to take on the job. I'll bet that most are completely against that, much like most are against charging fees.

The Scribe

01-03-2009, 10:37

I'm so glad I'm here in Maine...in an area where no matter...if your in trouble and can get notice of such to SOMEONE, SOMEONE will respond and not bitch a bit about it...be he/she rescue personnel or the ear on the other end of the phone or the car passing by....and there are those of you who have been the recepient of said rescue, ( I took you back to your bail out point the next year) yet I understand the NH stand...more people, more area with more chances of needless chance taking, novice decisions etc....remember..this is NOT always an AT issue...

I see your point boarstone but I don't think comparison from the area you are in to the Whites is really fair. The Maine woods are what they are. A way of life. Many of the people in them have been so for generations. Those that venture in often have the same ideals but live in populated areas. And yes, there are some that have no clue what they are doing.

But the Whites is a tourist destination, drawing many thousands of people, a much higher percentage (IMO) of people that have little or no clue. Add to that the Whites aren't a vast expanse criss-crossed by logging roads, little villages, sporting camps, and other escape routes to help people out.

I agree personal responsibility AND people helping people just because is the preferred way to go, but reality often says different. Also remember the comparison of the two states in general. Maine never says no to anyone, then complains about taxes and fees. New Hampshire on the other hand (Back to Live Free or Die) really tries to live that motto. It's great there is no sales or income tax there but it means people are on their own.

Disclaimer: Maine resident, NH native.

Lone Wolf

01-03-2009, 10:40

But the Whites is a tourist destination, drawing many thousands of people, a much higher percentage (IMO) of people that have little or no clue.

just like the AT

Tin Man

01-03-2009, 10:41

Back to the point, a person incapable of making basic decisions does not belong outside the house.:-?

Yeah, well they do, everyday. What do you propose... that will not fly? :)

Egads

01-03-2009, 10:51

Yeah, well they do, everyday. What do you propose... that will not fly? :)

Natural consequences from our decisions as was done for many millennium before this pussified generation took over.

Tin Man

01-03-2009, 10:53

Natural consequences from our decisions as was done for many millennium before this pussified generation took over.

yep, that still happens today - nature produced lawyers after all :D

Egads

01-03-2009, 10:56

yep, that still happens today - nature produced lawyers after all :D

Damn, I know when I've been licked. It's time for mandatory ranger guided hikes.

Tin Man

01-03-2009, 11:07

Damn, I know when I've been licked. It's time for mandatory ranger guided hikes.

you can come with em anytime :D

mudhead

01-03-2009, 11:16

Beyond paying for S&R costs, the incompetent should also be jailed for endangering the welfare of others...chopper pilots and crew, S&R personnel, Fish and game staff, Park Rangers etc. etc..
Or at least ticketed for littering.

Good luck making a case with that one. Those people know what they're getting into when they decide to take on the job. I'll bet that most are completely against that, much like most are against charging fees.
Unless they become burnt out by wild goose chases. You might be sucking wind with a compound fracture, while some flatlander has everyone looking for them. After they call(if) because it got light out and they did find their car, the cavalry can come look for you. or me.

Damn, I know when I've been licked. It's time for mandatory ranger guided hikes.
Acadia National Park does ranger guided hikes. I have sent relatives on these. Really is a good thing.

zoidfu

01-03-2009, 11:32

Unless they become burnt out by wild goose chases. You might be sucking wind with a compound fracture, while some flatlander has everyone looking for them. After they call(if) because it got light out and they did find their car, the cavalry can come look for you. or me.

.

My point, is that S&R's already don't want to charge fees because, amongst other things, they're afraid that a fee might make a person hesitate to call or avoid searchers. Adding jail time will make that problem 10x worse.

woodsy

01-03-2009, 11:43

Perilous rescues, at a price (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/24/perilous_rescues_at_a_price/)
good article from last year sums up the incompetence issues NH faces.
a must read(3 pages) for the Zoid :rolleyes: or anyone else that can't grasp the severity
of the NH situation.

mudhead

01-03-2009, 11:53

My point, is that S&R's already don't want to charge fees because, amongst other things, they're afraid that a fee might make a person hesitate to call or avoid searchers. Adding jail time will make that problem 10x worse.

If one really has a dire issue, do you really think money matters? I'll worry about the money after they poke the brain matter back in my head, and the steel plate takes hold. Maybe that is not the best analogy.

SAR guys say in public domain=what they talk about themselves?

zoidfu

01-03-2009, 11:56

If one really has a dire issue, do you really think money matters? I'll worry about the money after they poke the brain matter back in my head, and the steel plate takes hold. Maybe that is not the best analogy.

SAR guys say in public domain=what they talk about themselves?

Does money matter? Yes. Does jail matter? Hell, yes. These people that get themselves into this aren't too bright to begin with so I don't know what you expect from them...

I don't know.... I just posted some things I found. It's surprisingly hard to google info about this.. I tried so many different searches and I get a lot of the same material over and over.

I'm always willing to consider new info so if you have some, hit me with it.

zoidfu

01-03-2009, 12:01

Perilous rescues, at a price (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/24/perilous_rescues_at_a_price/)
good article from last year sums up the incompetence issues NH faces.
a must read(3 pages) for the Zoid :rolleyes: or anyone else that can't grasp the severity
of the NH situation.

The severity? You mean 40 "billable" offenses(according the original OP) out of 140? Let me know when they're shelling out more cash than they're taking in from tourism:rolleyes:

mudhead

01-03-2009, 12:10

I think one might have a better insight into uses the abuses of rescue personnel being closer to a touristy area.

Seems to be another divisive issue. I will try not to be so opinionated, unless I move to NH. But then I will be from away, and my opinion won't count.

I wonder how people in NH feel about rocks scratched by Lekis...

superman

01-03-2009, 12:15

I think one might have a better insight into uses the abuses of rescue personnel being closer to a touristy area.

Seems to be another divisive issue. I will try not to be so opinionated, unless I move to NH. But then I will be from away, and my opinion won't count.

I wonder how people in NH feel about rocks scratched by Lekis...

LOL, damn Lekis poles caused the old man of the mountain lose his head.:)

Panzer1

01-03-2009, 12:19

He and others who have helped rescue lost hikers tell stories of people venturing deep into the mountains without compasses or maps.

They apparently think little of hikers that don't have a compass or map.

Panzer

Plodderman

01-03-2009, 12:24

Personal responsibility is a must and I hope to not put anyone elses life on the line because of my negligence.

Panzer1

01-03-2009, 12:30

They wonder where the negligence line would be drawn; would someone hiking in jeans or with old equipment be considered negligent?

I think this is a good point. Even people here on this list cannot agree on what equiptment/clothing to bring on the AT. example, many here do not feel a map or compass is necessary.

Panzer

Sly

01-03-2009, 12:41

Jail time

Where did that come from?

The severity? You mean 40 "billable" offenses(according the original OP) out of 140? Let me know when they're shelling out more cash than they're taking in from tourism:rolleyes:

Not much into personal responsibility are you? It's not up to the state to CYA and bail you out for free, especially if it's negligent when venturing into the woods.

The new law isn't about fines as much as collecting for them. You don't pay you have your license suspended until you do. It's similar to click it, or ticket. Try not paying a road fine.

emerald

01-03-2009, 12:44

Fortunately, it isn't up to WhiteBlaze. Rather it is an issue for residents of New Hampshire to decide. They have determined how they wish to handle it and who they wish to make determinations regarding negligence. It would appear they wish for these decisions to be made by people in the field who are closest to the issue and thus have the best vantage point.

I would note that Panzer makes a strong case for referring people to hikeSafe.com.

Sly

01-03-2009, 12:46

Who are you talking to there Shades of Gray?

johnnybgood

01-03-2009, 13:26

The problem is, we encourage reckless consumers, not competent citizens.
Hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Sly

01-03-2009, 13:34

The problem is, we encourage reckless consumers, not competent citizens.

Hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Who's we and how do they do it?

Nearly every trail head has warnings about the dangers of hiking unprepared. You can lead a horse to water....

emerald

01-03-2009, 14:04

Who are you talking to there Shades of Gray?

General observation directed at anyone monitoring the thread, particularly opinionated non-residents. I've seen similar threads before. Someone posts something FYI and others take issue with it as if debating a contested issue not already decided.

FatMan

01-03-2009, 14:07

Fortunately, it isn't up to WhiteBlaze. Rather it is an issue for residents of New Hampshire to decide. They have determined how they wish to handle it and who they wish to make determinations regarding negligence on their behalf. It would appear they wish for these decisions made by people in the field who are closest to the issue who have the best vantage point.Exactly! Now stop talking sense. You know how that is frowned upon here at WB.;)

johnnybgood

01-03-2009, 14:16

Who's we and how do they do it?

Nearly every trail head has warnings about the dangers of hiking unprepared. You can lead a horse to water....
we= taxpayers bailout=we the taxpayers.

Sly

01-03-2009, 15:22

General observation directed at anyone monitoring the thread, particularly opinionated non-residents. I've seen similar threads before. Someone posts something FYI and others take issue with it as if debating a contested issue not already decided.

Ah, OK. I'm of the opinion there's nothing wrong with the new law.

emerald

01-03-2009, 15:33

It would still apply to you even if you thought it objectionable.;)

Sly

01-03-2009, 15:40

It would still apply to you even if you thought it objectionable.;)

LOL.. I find lots of laws objectionable, just not this one.

JAK

01-03-2009, 15:49

"This is confirmed by what happens in states; for legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one."

- Aristotle

woodsy

01-03-2009, 16:55

The severity? You mean 40 "billable" offenses(according the original OP) out of 140? Let me know when they're shelling out more cash than they're taking in from tourism:rolleyes:
I don't have to let you know nothing :rolleyes: :D

rickb

01-03-2009, 17:11

The take away message of all this is may be just this simple:

If you are short on cash and tend to have a "worrier" back home, be sure to tell her not to call the Mounties until you are at least 5 days past due. Or just tell her that you will coming home a few days after you really plan to.

Problem solved.

RickB

(Who is happy to pay NH's 8 percent lodging tax to avoid tenting in the winter)

KG4FAM

01-03-2009, 18:00

Nearly every trail head has warnings about the dangers of hiking unprepared. You can lead a horse to water....and fast food restaurants have to warn you that your coffee is going to be hot so they don't get sued. Putting a warning up at a trail head these days is just looks like a liability thing.

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 12:12

Where did that come from?

Not much into personal responsibility are you? It's not up to the state to CYA and bail you out for free, especially if it's negligent when venturing into the woods.

The new law isn't about fines as much as collecting for them. You don't pay you have your license suspended until you do. It's similar to click it, or ticket. Try not paying a road fine.

Woodsy said people should do jail time in addition to paying the money. Not much into reading a thread, are you?

As long as you're attracting people to the mountains(that you regulate and make money off of) and letting them in, then yes, you are liable for bailing them out.

The solution here is- Have something like a hiker safety course and certification that you must complete before you're allowed to go into the Whites.... but that's only if you're serious about keeping idiots off the mountain... which you aren't, because that would cost you tourism dollars.

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 12:21

General observation directed at anyone monitoring the thread, particularly opinionated non-residents. I've seen similar threads before. Someone posts something FYI and others take issue with it as if debating a contested issue not already decided.

It's an internet forum where we're kicking around ideas and having a grand time doing so. So what?

Sly

01-04-2009, 12:23

LOL... just because Woodsy said something doesn't make it true.

You don't like the law Ziodfu don't get drunk, wander into the NH woods and forget to pay the fine when they bail your ass out. Simple.

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 12:32

LOL... just because Woodsy said something doesn't make it true.

You don't like the law Ziodfu don't get drunk, wander into the NH woods and forget to pay the fine when they bail your ass out. Simple.

I was responding to him, I didn't say or believe it was the law:rolleyes: Do me a favor and stop responding to me until you develop some point of reference. This is the third or fourth time you've twisted my words around and came up with some ridiculous comment....

This isn't just about getting drunk and you know it... but you don't really have a firm argument other than, "get over it" so I'll take that as you bowing out. "Getting over it" might work on some of those who worship the government and their decisions but I'm not one of those people.

woodsy

01-04-2009, 12:39

LOL... just because Woodsy said something doesn't make it true.

huh? :confused: :D

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 12:41

huh? :confused: :D

Don't worry, he get's confused all the time, apparently.

I'm guessing moderatorships are given out depending on how much you post????;)

Rockhound

01-04-2009, 12:42

taking away a drivers licence? when you're hiking? Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else?

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 12:44

taking away a drivers licence? when you're hiking? Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else?

Yes. I think it's ridiculous to use it as leverage for any law that isn't related to driving.

superman

01-04-2009, 12:47

Lmao:d

KG4FAM

01-04-2009, 12:48

taking away a drivers licence? when you're hiking? Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else?and then they are going to ask nicely for the other state governments to play along. I'm pretty sure SC would say Up Yours and have another sales tax holiday on guns so we could start up yet another war.

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 12:49

and then they are going to ask nicely for the other state governments to play along. I'm pretty sure SC would say Up Yours and have another sales tax holiday on guns so we could start up yet another war.

ell oh ell!

Old Hillwalker

01-04-2009, 13:09

When Albert Dow was killed working a rescue on Mt Washington the NH rescue community got very pi$$ed off. Especially in light of the last few years of cell phone calls for help. I found this when I searched for Mr. Dow's incident and would like to share it with you.

http://www.mountwashington.org/about/visitor/surviving.php

Note that the good old Cog killed seven people in 1967

As a final note: I agree with this law but don't agree with our no helmet or no seatbelt law which applies to adults. Live Free and/or Die

Rockhound

01-04-2009, 13:26

When Albert Dow was killed working a rescue on Mt Washington the NH rescue community got very pi$$ed off. Especially in light of the last few years of cell phone calls for help. I found this when I searched for Mr. Dow's incident and would like to share it with you.

http://www.mountwashington.org/about/visitor/surviving.php

Note that the good old Cog killed seven people in 1967

As a final note: I agree with this law but don't agree with our no helmet or no seatbelt law which applies to adults. Live Free and/or Die

sounds hypocritical to me. what about all the extra money spent on scooping brains up off the highway? additional medical costs etc..?

saimyoji

01-04-2009, 15:57

LOL... just because Woodsy said something doesn't make it true.

You don't like the law Ziodfu don't get drunk, wander into the NH woods and forget to pay the fine when they bail your ass out. Simple.

huh? :confused: :D

Don't worry, he get's confused all the time, apparently.

I'm guessing moderatorships are given out depending on how much you post????;)

i'm thinking you missed something in this exchange. got caught up in your own exuberance and missed the boat, so to speak. BTW, you are getting super annoying. :cool:

emerald

01-04-2009, 16:16

Not much into reading a thread, are you?

As long as you're attracting people to the mountains(that you regulate and make money off of) and letting them in, then yes, you are liable for bailing them out.

The solution here is- Have something like a hiker safety course and certification that you must complete before you're allowed to go into the Whites.... but that's only if you're serious about keeping idiots off the mountain... which you aren't, because that would cost you tourism dollars.

Your reading skills and retention leave something to be desired. Who exactly is this you to whom you continually refer? There are many distinct groups of individuals involved all of whom are helping to educate visitors and they don't answer to you.

You really should stop insulting residents of New Hampshire. What they ought to do is prohibit you.

I suppose you think the course you propose should be free? Who do you think pays for hunter safety training? Who would offer this certification or licensing and enforce it?

It would probably be a New Hampshire agency or organization which licenses or certifies hikers/climbers and would conduct this course. Has it not occurred to you that the Whites Mountains are unique in some ways which contributes to people not knowing what to expect and thus gets them into trouble?

I presume you figure people who can't be bothered to visit hikeSafe.com will drive from Massachusetts and other states for these courses? Maybe you should consider the possibility that hikeSafe is a practical solution which can make a difference and is already in place.

I expect AMC is doing all kinds of things that would surprise you were you to visit their website. Maybe you should visit it, learn something and post some links instead of posting incessantly with your impractical solutions.

It's an Internet forum where we're kicking around ideas and having a grand time doing so. So what?

Really? How will any of it change anything and what does it do to educate anyone or improve upon what you find unsatisfactory?

warraghiyagey

01-04-2009, 16:23

LOL... just because Woodsy said something doesn't make it true.

Disagree. . . :)

sounds hypocritical to me. what about all the extra money spent on scooping brains up off the highway? additional medical costs etc..?

Why does this remind me of the windchill thread. . . coincidence??:-?:p:)

Sly

01-04-2009, 16:54

This isn't just about getting drunk and you know it...

Right, it's also about unpreparedness...

CONCORD – The state Fish and Game Department has a new and simpler way to go after the intoxicated and unprepared who venture into the woods and require costly rescues.

Dogwood

01-04-2009, 17:38

People needing rescue and found negligent need to pay up or lose driver license, possibly other licenses.
More than 1 million has been spent on rescues in the last decade with only $25,000 recouped.
Needless to say, the situation has gotten out of control and costly.;)

Fine by me. Less cars on the road will possibly lead to less roads! Pokey be careful of what U say. Some politician or govermental agency is apt to hear U mention a "hiker tax" and think it's a good idea to raise more, more, more money.

Pokey2006

01-04-2009, 18:37

Actually, "tax" was probably the wrong word. I had been thinking of that insurance program someone else brought up later.

BTW, I would be willing to buy into something like that -- it's a much better solution. When I went to Nepal, I willingly bought travel insurance, which would have covered my evacuation had I run into a medical emergency on the trail.

emerald

01-04-2009, 18:58

OK, Pokey, how would your insurance program work? Is it A.T.-wide, offered through NPS or ATC? Some A.T. through hikers apparently can't seem to justify buying maps!

What happens when you're on the Tuckerman Ravine Trail? Are you covered? And what about all the other people who visit WMNF? Should it be a New Hampshire-only program for AMC members or a NH Fish and Game program for all outdoor enthusiasts?

Maybe you are proposing a nationwide program offered through AHS? But what would it's purpose be? To reimburse those who provide services for which someone has already paid?

What's in place works, why change it? People who require rescues are getting rescued. What New Hampshire residents seem to want is more informed backcountry visitors and less rescues. The issue isn't primarily about money.

What about people who refuse to buy insurance? Does everyone who pays cover the costs involved with rescuing the uninsured?

Can it be mandated without New Hampshire's, WMNF's and AMC's participation? I would think it would never get off the ground without their support.

Those are just a few questions to think about. Perhaps someone might start a thread and indicate what's to be discussed in the opening post and attempt to keep it on-topic otherwise it's not apt to go anywhere useful.

Panzer1

01-04-2009, 19:09

I really don't think there is something like "hiker insurance" available, at least my in my state, PA. I don't know where I would get that if I wanted it.

Even if it was available, I don't think an insurance company could make money on something like that. If you think of the cost of creating a insurance product, marketing it and administering it, paying claims, ect, ect, how would an insurance company make money on a product like that. Who would buy it? In order to make money on an insurance product, lots of people would have to buy it to make it profitable. Also, compenent hikers would not buy sometyhing like that, only high risk hikers would want something like that which would drive the cost up. Lets face if, if someone thinks a compass and map is not necessary they arn't going to think that hike insurance is necessary.

Panzer

Homer&Marje

01-04-2009, 19:30

The take away message of all this is may be just this simple:

If you are short on cash and tend to have a "worrier" back home, be sure to tell her not to call the Mounties until you are at least 5 days past due. Or just tell her that you will coming home a few days after you really plan to.

Problem solved.

RickB

(Who is happy to pay NH's 8 percent lodging tax to avoid tenting in the winter)

I was going to just mention this very issue. Although, may it not be the worrisome wife or family member that calls, could be anyone. But most S + R begins with a phone call, a missing persons report after 48 hours and blah blah and so on. But, simple fact is, the person that is being rescued whether it be for real, for something trivial, or by complete mistake, usually doesn't initiate the S + R.

Income tax generally helps out with some of these issues of budget. Maybe Y'all should try em out for a few years.:D Just charge everyone before they ever use a road, crash, screw up, or get lost.:rolleyes:

superman

01-04-2009, 20:01

OK, I'll simplify the issue for y'all. You just send me a Dollar/3.80 and I'll give the officials a wink and a nod. If you send me 10 times that you can mention my name (you know how much weight that carries.) If you send me 100 times that I'll show you the secret NH hand shake.
I'll bet you out of staters feel better already.:)

rickb

01-04-2009, 20:14

If NH really wants to save its taxpayers the burden of paying for stupid and/or irresponsible people, it should charge smokers, no-helmet bikers and fat people more to live within its borders.

The extra cost for them is staggering.

mudhead

01-04-2009, 20:18

OK, I'll simplify the issue for y'all.
I'll bet you out of staters feel better already.:)

I know I do.

Now if you had said all y'all...

Sly

01-04-2009, 20:21

If NH really wants to save its taxpayers the burden of paying for stupid and/or irresponsible people, it should charge smokers, no-helmet bikers and fat people more to live within its borders.

The extra cost for them is staggering.

Rather than get into convoluted debates about the ills of society, let's just stick to the topic which is a new law by NH authorities with ways to collect from intoxicated and ill-prepared hikers that don't pay their rescue cost .

rickb

01-04-2009, 20:26

Rather than get into convoluted debates about the ills of society, let's just stick to the topic which is a new law by NH authorities with ways to collect from intoxicated and ill-prepared hikers that don't pay their rescue cost .

The most recent story being discussed mentioned nothing about the two young men being intoxicated.

Indeed, the thrust of the recent change to the NH law is a change in the legal standard away from "reckless" and to "negligent" with all the inherent legal meaning of the terms.

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 21:16

i'm thinking you missed something in this exchange. got caught up in your own exuberance and missed the boat, so to speak. BTW, you are getting super annoying. :cool:

I think you're the one that got caught up in my exuberance and got all hot and bothered. Go back and read what woodsy's opinion is. Then read my opinion on his opinion. Sly either misread it or intentionally took it out of context. Seems to be a habit of his....

I hope I'm starting to annoy some of you. You need to start thinking with your brain and quit being a slave to emotion.

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 21:26

Your reading skills and retention leave something to be desired. Who exactly is this you to whom you continually refer? There are many distinct groups of individuals involved all of whom are helping to educate visitors and they don't answer to you.

You really should stop insulting residents of New Hampshire. What they ought to do is prohibit you.

I suppose you think the course you propose should be free? Who do you think pays for hunter safety training? Who would offer this certification or licensing and enforce it?

It would probably be a New Hampshire agency or organization which licenses or certifies hikers/climbers and would conduct this course. Has it not occurred to you that the Whites Mountains are unique in some ways which contributes to people not knowing what to expect and thus gets them into trouble?

I presume you figure people who can't be bothered to visit hikeSafe.com will drive from Massachusetts and other states for these courses? Maybe you should consider the possibility that hikeSafe is a practical solution which can make a difference and is already in place.

I expect AMC is doing all kinds of things that would surprise you were you to visit their website. Maybe you should visit it, learn something and post some links instead of posting incessantly with your impractical solutions.

Really? How will any of it change anything and what does it do to educate anyone or improve upon what you find unsatisfactory?

You really don't know who I'm talking about?

Why should New Hampshire prohibit me? For having an opinion? You're one bitter guy(and you've been up my a$$ since the PA ruck thread). Like I said, I understand the sentiment behind the law, I'm just going to side with the policy of most S&R's.

You're making my argument for me, what with the differences the Whites offer. Just one more reason to force a certification on people... I don't actually support that policy, but it makes the most sense if NH is really that concerned with people in the Whites. It's apparently a "severe" situation so severe measures should be taken. Teaching these courses would probably cost less per year than you're shelling out for S&R.... Then legal obligation to pay back the S&R would be even easier to prove should it go to court.

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 21:27

The most recent story being discussed mentioned nothing about the two young men being intoxicated.

Indeed, the thrust of the recent change to the NH law is a change in the legal standard away from "reckless" and to "negligent" with all the inherent legal meaning of the terms.

Correct. The slippery slope has just been greased....

rickb

01-04-2009, 21:38

NH can be funny about a bunch of stuff.

The Concord NH Public Library is the only one I ever visited where I was refused access to a Computer Terminal for the lack of a local library card.

emerald

01-04-2009, 21:43

It's an internet forum where we're kicking around ideas and having a grand time doing so. So what?

What appears above belongs in the gap near the bottom of what I was last quoted as posting.

Rockhound

01-04-2009, 21:50

tax dollars should be used to keep S&R teams trained and equipped. Rescuees should cover the costs of an actual S&R mission. whether the rescuee is a sober seasoned pro or a drunken, dumb newbie doesnt matter. If unable (or unwilling) to pay for this service the rescuee should be given an option of community service or volunteer hours. If unwilling or unable to do this either, then NH needs to take the rescuee to court, attatch wages etc.. The idea of taking away a drivers licence from someone for doing something completely unrelated to driving is absurd. Maybe they should away their right to vote and own land while they're at it

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 21:54

What appears above belongs in the gap near the bottom of what I was last quoted as posting.

Really? How will any of it change anything and what does it do to educate anyone or improve upon what you find unsatisfactory?

I didn't realize whiteblaze was a state legislature... Answer? It might provoke one of the residents to consider what's been discussed, whether it's my opinion or not and that could lead to bigger things...

Anyway, that isn't the point. We're debating/discussing the new law for our entertainment.

emerald

01-04-2009, 22:02

It might provoke one of the residents to consider what's been discussed, whether it's my opinion or not and that could lead to bigger things...

Doubtful and I would think they know what's best for NH better than anyone.

Anyway, that isn't the point. We're debating/discussing the new law for our entertainment.

I guess it doesn't take much.:D

zoidfu

01-04-2009, 22:13

Doubtful and I would think they know what's best for NH better than anyone.

I don't see it as strictly a NH issue. This could affect anyone from anywhere. I can just see it now- John Doe from Ohio is lost and he knows it... but he thinks that maybe he can just keep trying to find his way and avoid that fee because he doesn't know if he's been negligent or not. So he keeps wandering around... John just made the rescue that much more difficult...

Rockhound

01-04-2009, 22:20

It just occured to me that I dont have a real job or a licence. I think Im gonna go hike the Whites next month in my crocs.

Rockhound

01-04-2009, 22:21

free ride in a chopper. why not?

Lone Wolf

01-04-2009, 22:24

free ride in a chopper. why not?

only if you're a kennedy or a high profile disabled thru-hiker. works at katahdin anyway

woodsy

01-04-2009, 22:46

I hope I'm starting to annoy some of you.
Starting ? thats http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing013.gif
You need to take a hike man, better not do it in NH though, you seem scairt of the negligent hiker law.

fishinfred

01-04-2009, 22:48

Can u imagine.....I have insurance! I can try anything .....I'll just call 911 LW will get me :D

NO WAY !!!!

Here is the best BUMPER STICKER I MADE FOR SOMEONE THIS PAST YEAR...
I think it fits here
and to keep this thread on track ....

BEWARE cause it is now a $2000 (YES THOUSAND!) fine for peeing in public (as of JAN 1) in NH and last I heard the woods was public ....watch out for those NH Rangers lookin for your $$$ Z
REALLY now.......
STUPID SHOULD HURT how else they gonna learn a lesson

Lets not make it too easy for people to be STUPID cause someone else ends up risking their life to save em
THANKS TO ALL THOSE SAR FOLKS
I hope I never make ya work
PEACE

Homer&Marje

01-04-2009, 23:05

I will be in the White Mountains for my anniversary January 9-11.

I WILL BE CONDUCTING A TEST OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE EMERGENCY HIKER RESPONSE TEAM. DO NOT WORRY THIS IS ONLY. A TEST.

IN EVENT OF A REAL EMERGENCY I WILL TRY TO ALERT THE PROPER AUTHORITIES, HAVE MY CREDIT CHECKED, SEE IF I AM ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO RECEIVE FINANCING FOR A S + R OPERATION, AND THEN WORK OUT A FIRM AGREEMENT OF PAYMENT PLAN AND INTEREST RATE FOR MY INVESTMENT. PER CHANCE GANGRENE HAS SET IN BY THE TIME MY INVESTMENT HAS ARRIVED. PLEASE REVIVE:D

woodsy

01-05-2009, 08:33

When Albert Dow was killed working a rescue on Mt Washington the NH rescue community got very pi$$ed off. Especially in light of the last few years of cell phone calls for help. I found this when I searched for Mr. Dow's incident and would like to share it with you.

http://www.mountwashington.org/about/visitor/surviving.php

Note that the good old Cog killed seven people in 1967

As a final note: I agree with this law but don't agree with our no helmet or no seatbelt law which applies to adults. Live Free and/or Die

Thanks for bringing up this link Hillwalker, a sobering reminder that the Presidential Range in particular is more than just a walk in the park and is worth clicking on the link.
This brief paragraph from the site among many was noteworthy and sums up part of the reason for enforcing the negligent hiker law.:

Many people donate their time to assist in search and rescue efforts in the Presidential Range. These people are willing to put their own lives at risk in order to aid those who have become lost or hurt in the mountains. In not properly preparing for your adventure, you risk not only putting your own life and the lives of those with you in danger, but you also put at risk the lives of those who would attempt to help you. Please prepare carefully and thoroughly before you go out to seek your mountain adventure.

MOWGLI

01-05-2009, 08:52

The only issue I have with this is... there are many other states that have public lands, and only a handful of them charge for a SAR. Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax either, but for some reason, they don't feel compelled to institute this charge. And we have plenty of federal lands where people can get lost and in trouble. And we have more than our share of nit wits too. (no wise cracks)

IMO, states should be prohibited from unilaterally instituting fees like this for a SAR on federal lands. There should be a uniform policy nationwide. What they do on state lands or private lands is their business.

Homer&Marje

01-05-2009, 09:30

So who is footing the bill on Federal lands. Is it the US Gov. that pays for the S + R or is it always the state. Seems like there is a conflict of interest on who is in charge. Easy to get the charges dropped in court at least. Hell, you don't even need a lawyer to get out of paying that fine. (Charge, repayment, restitution) whatever you want to call it.

MOWGLI

01-05-2009, 09:36

So who is footing the bill on Federal lands. Is it the US Gov. that pays for the S + R or is it always the state.

There was a much publicized SAR on the AT in GSMNP above Cosby a few winters ago. The hiker lost several toes. Rangers from the State of Tennessee participated in the SAR and littered the guy out.

I'm not sure if the Feds reimburse the State employees for their time. My guess is they don't, and the state park folks look at this as both an opportunity to help, and an opportunity to get real-time training.

woodsy

01-05-2009, 09:39

NH shoulda started charging some of these rescuees several years ago, when the cell phone, instead of proper knowledge and gear, became a survival tool.

warraghiyagey

01-05-2009, 09:48

Boobs

Sly

01-05-2009, 10:35

The only issue I have with this is... there are many other states that have public lands, and only a handful of them charge for a SAR. Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax either, but for some reason, they don't feel compelled to institute this charge. And we have plenty of federal lands where people can get lost and in trouble. And we have more than our share of nit wits too. (no wise cracks)

IMO, states should be prohibited from unilaterally instituting fees like this for a SAR on federal lands. There should be a uniform policy nationwide. What they do on state lands or private lands is their business.

TN doesn't have a dumb and drunk charge?

I'd venture to be that the Whites has more rescues, especially in Winter time than the Smokies, and the weather is much more extreme.

zoidfu

01-05-2009, 10:44

TN doesn't have a dumb and drunk charge?

I'd venture to be that the Whites has more rescues, especially in Winter time than the Smokies, and the weather is much more extreme.

No, they don't. Most places don't for reasons that have already been stated.

I'd argue that going out into the Whites is your first negligent act(which is why it's so fun).:banana

chomp

01-05-2009, 11:01

This thread is one of the reasons I barely visit WB anymore, and I'm only participating now because I live in NH and feel like I need to clear up a few of the numerous false claims so far in this thread:

1) You will not lose your license for needing to be rescued. You will lose your license if you are charged for the rescue and you refuse to pay. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about this law.

2) NH does not have any broad-based taxes and that is exactly the way we want it around here. That means we have less money for "services", such full time fire departments or SAR, for example. That is not going to change. And the issue that started this law a few years back was cell phones and people calling for their own rescues.

3) Education efforts so far have not worked. New Hampshire started the HikeSafe website, as well as posted warning and information at most trailheads. This effort has not resulted in decreased SAR activity. As with most things, when it involves money, people sit up and pay attention. As much as this law is about recooping costs, its about discouraging future reckless hikers.

4) Discussion like this is exactly what the law was meant to bring about, so I'd say "Mission Accomplished". The new law got press. The rescued hikers that will be charged for the rescue got press. And now a how bunch more people just on this site that was unaware of this law before are now aware of it. Love it or hate it, anyone reading this thread will think of it before hitting the trails in NH. Do I have my compass? Maybe I should bring that rain jacket...

5) The volunteers that perticipate in SAR activities are not looking for money and are not complaining about having to go into dangerous conditions. What they are concerned about is burnout from having to perform too many rescues each year. These people have jobs and responsibilities of their own - how many times could you leave work with no notice for possibly a couple of days? Again, the long-term intention here is to cut down on the number of SAR's, not generate a new revenue stream.

6) NH gets no federal dollars for SAR activities.

7) FISHIN FRED is COMPLETELTY AND TOTALLY 100% WRONG WITH HIS POST ABOUT URINATING IN NH. First off, the first thing that NH did is define public urination and defication better, and made it so that it does NOT result in the offender landing on the sex offender registry. There is a $1000 fine for public urination of defication "under circumstances where the person knew or should have known would likely cause affront or alarm to another." In other words, you can pee in the woods, and just about anywhere that your parts won't be visible to other people.

Rockhound

01-05-2009, 11:16

so lets say a truck driver gets charged. In this economy hes having trouble making ends meet. He cant afford the fine and he certainly cant afford to lose his license. Its his livelyhood. Youre saying its fair to take his drivers licence and in effect ruining his life, for doing something completely unrelated to driving?

chomp

01-05-2009, 11:27

so lets say a truck driver gets charged. In this economy hes having trouble making ends meet. He cant afford the fine and he certainly cant afford to lose his license. Its his livelyhood. Youre saying its fair to take his drivers licence and in effect ruining his life, for doing something completely unrelated to driving?

The state has and would make an arrangement for the person in question to make payments for the rescue. What we are talking about is an outright refusal to pay.

MOWGLI

01-05-2009, 11:28

This thread is one of the reasons I barely visit WB anymore, and I'm only participating now because I live in NH and feel like I need to clear up a few of the numerous false claims so far in this thread:

1) You will not lose your license for needing to be rescued. You will lose your license if you are charged for the rescue and you refuse to pay. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about this law.

2) NH does not have any broad-based taxes and that is exactly the way we want it around here. That means we have less money for "services", such full time fire departments or SAR, for example. That is not going to change. And the issue that started this law a few years back was cell phones and people calling for their own rescues.

3) Education efforts so far have not worked. New Hampshire started the HikeSafe website, as well as posted warning and information at most trailheads. This effort has not resulted in decreased SAR activity. As with most things, when it involves money, people sit up and pay attention. As much as this law is about recooping costs, its about discouraging future reckless hikers.

4) Discussion like this is exactly what the law was meant to bring about, so I'd say "Mission Accomplished". The new law got press. The rescued hikers that will be charged for the rescue got press. And now a how bunch more people just on this site that was unaware of this law before are now aware of it. Love it or hate it, anyone reading this thread will think of it before hitting the trails in NH. Do I have my compass? Maybe I should bring that rain jacket...

5) The volunteers that perticipate in SAR activities are not looking for money and are not complaining about having to go into dangerous conditions. What they are concerned about is burnout from having to perform too many rescues each year. These people have jobs and responsibilities of their own - how many times could you leave work with no notice for possibly a couple of days? Again, the long-term intention here is to cut down on the number of SAR's, not generate a new revenue stream.

6) NH gets no federal dollars for SAR activities.

7) FISHIN FRED is COMPLETELTY AND TOTALLY 100% WRONG WITH HIS POST ABOUT URINATING IN NH. First off, the first thing that NH did is define public urination and defication better, and made it so that it does NOT result in the offender landing on the sex offender registry. There is a $1000 fine for public urination of defication "under circumstances where the person knew or should have known would likely cause affront or alarm to another." In other words, you can pee in the woods, and just about anywhere that your parts won't be visible to other people.

Good info Chomp. Thanks.

zoidfu

01-05-2009, 11:29

Would the person have to go on probation then? That's how they do it in PA when a person can't afford to pay a fine or give up their license.

fishinfred

01-05-2009, 11:29

OOPs my mistake :eek: It is only a $1000 fine
Here's a link
http://wbztv.com/watercooler/public.urination.new.2.898275.html

I could swear the article I read the other day said $2000
Sorry about the mislead there ...

Thanks Chomp
PEACE & GOOD HIKING!

chomp

01-05-2009, 11:34

OOPs my mistake :eek: It is only a $1000 fine

When I said that your post was wrong, I was more referring to you reference that peeing in the woods was illegal than your mistake about the dollar amount of the fine. If anything, NH has one of the more lenient laws on public urination, given that you won't be considered a sex offender and that you would cause affront or alarm by your actions.

And it is UP TO a $1000 fine, with the discretion being left up to the judge.

Here is the actual law:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/645/645-1-a.htm

woodsy

01-05-2009, 11:42

I'd venture to be that the Whites has more rescues, especially in Winter time than the Smokies, and the weather is much more extreme.

Good chance this is the case

more informative reading and some stats from Mt Washington Avalanche Center (http://www.tuckerman.org/avalanche/terrainandconditions.htm)

The Presidential Range is located within a day’s drive (24 hours) of 80 million people, roughly 1/3 of the population of the United States. The area, with its rich cultural history, provides great attraction to seekers of winter alpine challenge. It offers some of the best, most accessible and most challenging alpine mountaineering and backcountry skiing in the northeastern United States. Recreation opportunities of this variety are not common in the region.
Of little surprise, winter recreation use is at a high level. Recreation activity in avalanche prone areas is highly concentrated in Tuckerman and Huntington Ravines on the eastern side of Mount Washington. It is within this area that the US Forest Service operates the only avalanche forecasting and education program in the eastern United States.
Roughly 35 to 40,000 people will visit the avalanche forecast area on Mount Washington each winter (B.Ray pers. com.). Our experience as avalanche forecasters indicate that a very small percentage of persons climbing and skiing within the forecast area have the knowledge, skills or rescue equipment to safely evaluate and mitigate avalanche hazards, presenting no small challenge to mountain safety personnel.

BTW, good post Chomp, thanks for weighing in again despite the annoying
minority @ WB.

zoidfu

01-05-2009, 12:28

BTW, good post Chomp, thanks for weighing in again despite the annoying
minority @ WB.

Whine more:D

warraghiyagey

01-05-2009, 12:29

Checking in on Wind Chill thread. All is well. . .

mudhead

01-05-2009, 13:18

That's how they do it in PA

Thanks for the info Chomp. I was worried about the whizzing thing.

Mainer gets the leash off, he's apt to water a tree about anywhere.

yappy

01-05-2009, 13:26

lol... alrighty then !

Rockhound

01-05-2009, 14:56

If you get a D.U.I. in New Hampshire are you still allowed to hike?

MOWGLI

01-05-2009, 14:58

If you get a D.U.I. in New Hampshire are you still allowed to hike?

Yes, but not in Tennessee.

Tin Man

01-05-2009, 15:27

Yes, but not in Tennessee.

does that mean you can only use your atv?

MOWGLI

01-05-2009, 15:37

does that mean you can only use your atv?

Only in West Virginia.

chomp

01-05-2009, 15:54

Thanks for the info Chomp. I was worried about the whizzing thing.

Mainer gets the leash off, he's apt to water a tree about anywhere.

Sorry to hear about your prostate problems, but I'm glad to alleviate your concerns about public urination in my state.

chomp

01-05-2009, 15:54

If you get a D.U.I. in New Hampshire are you still allowed to hike?

If you get a DUI in NH, you are required to hike. Or thumb. Your choice.

chomp

01-05-2009, 15:55

Yes, but not in Tennessee.

In fairness - I've hiked in Tennessee and I'm not dying to get back there. So its not like this is a bad thing.

Dogwood

01-05-2009, 16:16

Chomp, please don't go! Stay awhile. Clearify our minds!

Rockhound

01-05-2009, 16:26

taking away driving licenses for reckless hiking. other inane laws still on the books. Its illegal to sleep naked in Minnesota. In Mesquite TX, children are prohibited from having "unusual" haircuts.In Arizona, donkeys may not,by law, sleep in bathtubs. Its against the law in Chicago for "exceedingly ugly" people to appear in public. In Salem WV, it is illegal to leave home without knowing where youre going. Detroit law prohibits a man from scowling at his wife on a Sunday. Wearing high heeled shoes in Carmel CA, is legal, but you need a permit. Maine law states that you may not catch a lobster with your bare hands.

4eyedbuzzard

01-05-2009, 16:33

Chomp, please don't go! Stay awhile. Clearify our minds!

... Maine law states that you may not catch a lobster with your bare hands.

Speaking of lobster, someone butter clarify these posts.

superman

01-05-2009, 20:20

I used to spend time in DC. One time I met a guy from Louisiana who was there working towards getting a law passed to make it illegal to eat human flesh. I asked him if that is a big problem in his state. He looked at me real serious and said, "You’d be surprised." It made a lot of these other laws that seem iffy not such a big deal.:-?

Homer&Marje

01-05-2009, 22:47

Can the lost hiker community get a federal bailout? Seriously...we will take an education course and try and walk our company better :D

Joshuatree

12-28-2010, 02:00

Why don't states put a tax on sporting gear? Tents, sleeping bags, and the gear people use to go into the wilderness then use those funds to pay for seach and rescue crews. Some states have taxes on fishing gear they use those funds to pay for boat ramps, stocking, and enforcement. It helps keep the cost down for non particpaiting taxpayers

Driver8

12-28-2010, 04:32

I'm not really saying, "let's get tough". I'm saying, "if you do the crime, pay the dime". We need to get away from the "entitlement" mindset in our society. The, "I got my hoverround, and didn't have to pay a dime", mindset. Somebody had to pay for that hoverround; the taxpayer, with Medicare/Medicaid funds, somebody paid, as they don't give them away for free.

So if someone breaks into your house, you should have to pay for the police visit? Maybe it's YOUR fault, somehow, that it happened.

Sorry, I can't endorse your view. What we need to get rid of, the moreso, in our country, is tightwads who freak out whenever it's time for them to pay their fair share of taxes and who get into green eye shade mode and high dudgeon at the drop of a hat, pretending that their objections are about principle. Just pay your fair share, enjoy your hike, and be thankful for the blessing of being an American citizen, an extraordinary privilege. My two cents' worth, freely given. ...

Snoring Sarge

12-28-2010, 06:00

Make another law that will fix everything!

As long as the government is willing and able to bail wall street bankers to the tune of BILLION spending a million to find lost kittens and puppies on the A.T. does not seem out of line. If it is ok to fund TARP for wall street then it should be ok to pick up the tab for a tarp for a lost camper.

When hikers stop and eat or buy supplies in the find State of NH they are paying into the state coffers from which the money to rescue them is drawn. Get over it, the cost of rescue is part of the cost of being in tourist business.

If one is rich and stupid the getting rescued is no problem, it is only if you are poor and "stupid" that getting rescued will be a problem?

4eyedbuzzard

12-28-2010, 09:19

Recent weather gives a perfect example of the application of this law. Anyone stupid enough to have gone out Sunday or yesterday (or going above treeline today) and then requiring rescue should be held liable for their idiocy. The conditions are known. It puts S&R people at risk and incurs considerable rescue costs.

Why should NH taxpayers foot the bill for absolute idiots who would ignore the vast amount of information available and the repeated warnings, and then venture out into a winter storm in the Whites only to require rescue?

Hobbler

12-28-2010, 09:39

Recent weather gives a perfect example of the application of this law. Anyone stupid enough to have gone out Sunday or yesterday (or going above treeline today) and then requiring rescue should be held liable for their idiocy. The conditions are known. It puts S&R people at risk and incurs considerable rescue costs.

Why should NH taxpayers foot the bill for absolute idiots who would ignore the vast amount of information available and the repeated warnings, and then venture out into a winter storm in the Whites only to require rescue?

...Yes,I agree that it is really somewhat ignorant of the conditions and an un-necessary testing of the welfare of the rescuers.

...Because they can and there is nothing to stop them!

4eyedbuzzard

12-28-2010, 10:28

...Yes,I agree that it is really somewhat ignorant of the conditions and an un-necessary testing of the welfare of the rescuers.

...Because they can and there is nothing to stop them!

Exactly. And it is that attitude, "Because [I] can and there is nothing to stop [me]!", and the result (rescue of arrogant and/or ignorant idiot) that the law should address. Has it and will it be misapplied at times? Yes. It's difficult / impossible to completely eliminate the human error element on either side of the equation.

We also face the internal problem in NH of 90% of our population and their elected state lawmakers living south of the areas most likely to require S&R functions. And most of them have no clue when it comes to our little part of the world. 90% of those who have been to the north country have likely never gone beyond the parking lots or paved trails to the Basin, etc. They are what we lovingly refer to as flatlanders, and are for the most part are as clueless as many of the people they want to charge for rescue.

I think the law is well intended, but poorly enacted and applied. The law shouldn't be used to charge those who suffer accidents, or run into unanticipated weather issues, or even just get lost. As long as people are reasonably prepared and simply mess up, there shouldn't be any collection action. I also agree with critics of the current law that suggest that it shouldn't be a collection action, but rather a regulatory fine. So yeah, there is much that could be done better.

But is it too much to expect that people going hiking or climbing check weather forecasts, have suitable basic gear like clothing, a flashlight, etc, and have a map and compass and know how to navigate if going beyond the tourist attractions? If they don't, they shouldn't go. Don't leave the GD trailhead. Period. And if they do anyway, then they should be fined for requiring resources to be used to save their @$$ from their own stupidity.

Driver8

12-28-2010, 11:19

Why should NH taxpayers foot the bill for absolute idiots who would ignore the vast amount of information available and the repeated warnings, and then venture out into a winter storm in the Whites only to require rescue?

For the same reason people who leave their homes or cars unlocked and who get robbed or burglarized should not have to pay for police follow-up. Social insurance. Education is a better solution. The "idiot" who gets lost or who imperils her or her life pays a big enough cost from enduring the incident, imo.

Slo-go'en

12-28-2010, 11:57

What about homeowners who neglect something and have a house fire? We send 'em a bill from the fire department?

Actually, in some communities, yes. Instead of rising taxes on everyone (or in addition to), they are sending bills to people who require city services like fire and police - mostly for accident responce.

People have gotten bills for the shovels and brooms used to clean up the mess they made on the road, in addition to the labor and ware and tare on equipment.

the goat

12-28-2010, 12:08

Actually, in some communities, yes. Instead of rising taxes on everyone (or in addition to), they are sending bills to people who require city services like fire and police - mostly for accident responce.

People have gotten bills for the shovels and brooms used to clean up the mess they made on the road, in addition to the labor and ware and tare on equipment.

i have a buddy who wrecked his motorcycle on the highway & wrapped himself around a guard rail in the process.

while he was still in critical care, he got a bill from the state for the repair costs of the guard rail.

Driver8

12-28-2010, 12:26

while he was still in critical care, he got a bill from the state for the repair costs of the guard rail.

This I can see, as state property has been damaged. Insurance will cover this.

4eyedbuzzard

12-28-2010, 13:41

As an analogy, people can be issued summonses and fined for many types of reckless behavior, whether or not damage to property, public or private, occurs. Examples include jaywalking, motor vehicle operation, breaking firearms / hunting laws (such as shooting across a road). People are also held civilly liable if their negligent / reckless actions result in another another party incurring costs as a result of their actions, whether or not there is physical damage to tangible property.

From the standpoint of fining someone under a regulation, S&R is a bit different, but so is the required response, unless we are willing to simply wait to apprehend the offender when, and more realistically, IF they return alive.

As a society, we have chosen a policy that we will generally not allow people to die even if they are fools. From a civil recovery standpoint, it is the negligence / recklessness of the person that constitutes proximate cause for the S&R costs, so why shouldn't they be liable? The deciding judgement factor is whether or not it is an accident or is a foreseeable result of negligence / recklessness.

As I said earlier, I think these laws (there are other states in this as well) need to be examined, but I can't say I'm against the idea of fines or civil recovery when idiotic people's reckless and / or negligent behavior runs up the bill for everyone else.

neighbor dave

12-28-2010, 13:49

As a society, we have chosen a policy that we will generally not allow people to die even if they are fools.
generally speaking;
only if there's money to be made, and certainly not if there's money to be lost. there are an infinate amount of examples that come to mind but probably not in keeping with the board rules:sun

Sly

12-28-2010, 15:47

Since there's nothing new regarding this law, I'm going to close this old topic. Have a nice day. :D